A Band-Aid for Liberalism
I`ve made the argument that Liberalism is a degenerative psychosis, and that the Left will, if unrestrained, descend into the pit of madness. We have witnessed this countless times in history, and we are witnessing a serious ``episode`` of mental disturbance among these poor souls today.
Our good friend Aussiegirl over at Ultima Thule links to an article from UPI about the Euston Manifesto (libs love manifestos!), which is a transnational movement by the left towards a more moderate stance-an attempt to break the power of the Moore-ons and Move-ons who have been hurting their image with the public. While I understand that libs come in all stripes, and that there are and were moderate liberals, I fear that this is an example of closing the barn-door after the documentary producing cow (Moore) has gotten loose, and I suspect little will come of this effort.
As UT reader Thanos points out, the left seems a bit slow finding their moral compass, and they tend to rethink their position at fortuitous times. We always seem to hear about these Renaissance Liberals before important elections, or at times when the fender of the Teddy Kennedy limousine needs polishing (it`s hard to get a shine with all that seaweed and rust), but rarely do these types of movements last past the crisis point, and rarely are they effective at creating a lasting change in liberal operating procedures.
I`ve always believed that Liberalism is like a cancer, and that it will metastasize when it is successful. Liberals in Russia couldn`t be happy to just remove the Tsar-they had to put the Bolsheviks in power! Liberals in Germany couldn`t be happy with the Kaiser, so they forced him out and tried to take over, when that failed they supported the election of one Adolf Hitler. Remember the Sandinistas and Daniel Ortega? Every liberal in America supported this thug, as most do Castro and Chavez today.
The triumph of liberalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries here in the U.S. (liberalism triumphed earlier in Europe) lead to the radicalization of the `60`s and the subsequent backlash gave us the Potemkin Village Idiot, William Jefferson (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you-yeah baby!) Clinton. He was a lefty dressed up in geeks clothing, a preppie liberal who hid who he was and what he would do behind the mantle of ``moderate``. He had to-America had turned against the radical agenda of the left, had restrained the excessive tendencies of the left.
Just like a cancer reacting to chemotherapy, the libs retreat temporarily to regroup when there is a backlash against them. Rarely to they mean business, and I am doubtful they really mean it now.
Most liberals believe there is a natural progression to History. They (unwittingly) have adopted the Christian view that History has a purpose and plan-except they have subtracted the Divine out of their belief and replaced it with a pseudo-scientific engine for ``progress`` (that`s why they call themselves progressives). As a result, moderate liberalism generally gives way to more serious liberalism, then to radicalized liberalism, then to extreme kill-anyone-who-doesn`t-agree leftism. This ``scientific progression`` of liberalism usually ends with a Pol Pot, if not restrained. It is a megalomaniac psychosis which must be restrained for everybody`s well being.
Of course, there are and were more moderate liberals; Joe Lieberman is very liberal in many ways, but looks like Atilla the Hun next to the current crop, so they have sought to purge him. I think what they did to Lieber(al)man is classic leftism.
Shoot, George Bush is a liberal by any rational standard; he is as liberal as Harry Truman, yet the left despises him and calls him a right wing nut. I`m sorry, but I am a right winger, and Mr. Bush is no right winger. Yet such an apostate cannot be tolerated. If the left can`t accept George Bush, who can they accept? He is the perfect foil; he gives them half of the loaf every time and refuses to fight with them. (I suppose that`s why they hate him-they still can`t beat him, despite his fighting them with one hand voluntarily tied behind his back.)
So now a bunch of liberals seek to reform their movement; more power to them! If they are sincere. If they can convince the increasingly radicalized members of their own community. I wish them well.
But I`m not going to hold my breath; remember Alexander Kerensky thought that his left-wing buddies would be happy when he took over from the Tsar, yet they supported the bloody and destructive Bolsheviks in the end. Kerensky just didn`t go far enough, didn`t quench their thirst for leftism and power. He was like Joe Lieberman-a relic of the transitional period.
I`ve never heard of cancer being reformed; it has to be destroyed.
Our good friend Aussiegirl over at Ultima Thule links to an article from UPI about the Euston Manifesto (libs love manifestos!), which is a transnational movement by the left towards a more moderate stance-an attempt to break the power of the Moore-ons and Move-ons who have been hurting their image with the public. While I understand that libs come in all stripes, and that there are and were moderate liberals, I fear that this is an example of closing the barn-door after the documentary producing cow (Moore) has gotten loose, and I suspect little will come of this effort.
As UT reader Thanos points out, the left seems a bit slow finding their moral compass, and they tend to rethink their position at fortuitous times. We always seem to hear about these Renaissance Liberals before important elections, or at times when the fender of the Teddy Kennedy limousine needs polishing (it`s hard to get a shine with all that seaweed and rust), but rarely do these types of movements last past the crisis point, and rarely are they effective at creating a lasting change in liberal operating procedures.
I`ve always believed that Liberalism is like a cancer, and that it will metastasize when it is successful. Liberals in Russia couldn`t be happy to just remove the Tsar-they had to put the Bolsheviks in power! Liberals in Germany couldn`t be happy with the Kaiser, so they forced him out and tried to take over, when that failed they supported the election of one Adolf Hitler. Remember the Sandinistas and Daniel Ortega? Every liberal in America supported this thug, as most do Castro and Chavez today.
The triumph of liberalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries here in the U.S. (liberalism triumphed earlier in Europe) lead to the radicalization of the `60`s and the subsequent backlash gave us the Potemkin Village Idiot, William Jefferson (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you-yeah baby!) Clinton. He was a lefty dressed up in geeks clothing, a preppie liberal who hid who he was and what he would do behind the mantle of ``moderate``. He had to-America had turned against the radical agenda of the left, had restrained the excessive tendencies of the left.
Just like a cancer reacting to chemotherapy, the libs retreat temporarily to regroup when there is a backlash against them. Rarely to they mean business, and I am doubtful they really mean it now.
Most liberals believe there is a natural progression to History. They (unwittingly) have adopted the Christian view that History has a purpose and plan-except they have subtracted the Divine out of their belief and replaced it with a pseudo-scientific engine for ``progress`` (that`s why they call themselves progressives). As a result, moderate liberalism generally gives way to more serious liberalism, then to radicalized liberalism, then to extreme kill-anyone-who-doesn`t-agree leftism. This ``scientific progression`` of liberalism usually ends with a Pol Pot, if not restrained. It is a megalomaniac psychosis which must be restrained for everybody`s well being.
Of course, there are and were more moderate liberals; Joe Lieberman is very liberal in many ways, but looks like Atilla the Hun next to the current crop, so they have sought to purge him. I think what they did to Lieber(al)man is classic leftism.
Shoot, George Bush is a liberal by any rational standard; he is as liberal as Harry Truman, yet the left despises him and calls him a right wing nut. I`m sorry, but I am a right winger, and Mr. Bush is no right winger. Yet such an apostate cannot be tolerated. If the left can`t accept George Bush, who can they accept? He is the perfect foil; he gives them half of the loaf every time and refuses to fight with them. (I suppose that`s why they hate him-they still can`t beat him, despite his fighting them with one hand voluntarily tied behind his back.)
So now a bunch of liberals seek to reform their movement; more power to them! If they are sincere. If they can convince the increasingly radicalized members of their own community. I wish them well.
But I`m not going to hold my breath; remember Alexander Kerensky thought that his left-wing buddies would be happy when he took over from the Tsar, yet they supported the bloody and destructive Bolsheviks in the end. Kerensky just didn`t go far enough, didn`t quench their thirst for leftism and power. He was like Joe Lieberman-a relic of the transitional period.
I`ve never heard of cancer being reformed; it has to be destroyed.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:25 AM
3 Comments:
Nice work. True enough, liberalism is a disease. But it always, always, begins at the supernatural level. Once one denies God one must find a substitute---Humanism, Liberalism Positivism, Environmentalism, Communism, Hedonism---all are idols.
Like bacteria, liberalism is always present but only thrives in a body politic that has been weakened through years of moral confusion. For example, could such a cut-rate mountebank like Clinton have been elected in, say, 1950?
When liberalism runs amok the result is totalitarianism---Lenin, Hitler, Mao and such murderous flotsam. These types are nothing but the logical result of a flight from God, each in his own way a little anti-Christ, each a representative of a culture whose greatest achievements are the gulag and the graveyard..
You bet, Mike! Liberalism is a spiritual malady; it is the evil twin of the reformation, the desire to rebuild and reform with God sucked out of the equation. The reformation and counter-reformation were good and noble things, but the afterbirth of Liberalism twisted and perverted the whole thing into a mechanical and nihilistic movement. That, along with a revival of interest in things pagan, produced this new religion of nothing, this worship of Man the Most High.
Man makes a poor final authority, and when reliance on the wisdom of the Divine is shelved in favor of human reason alone, chaos follows. I like that phrase of yours-a culture whose greatest achievements are the gulag and the graveyard! Well said!
Nevertheless, I welcome any liberal who want to recover his senses long enough to recognize the danger we are in, and to acknowledge a few basic facts of life. We can't win this civilizational struggle with conservatives alone, we have to win over the majority who, let's face it, are liberal. While I agree with both of you about what happens when God is thrown out of the equation, it is possible for even atheists and agnostics to come to reasonable conclusions about right and wrong. Andrew Bostom and Christopher Hitchens come to mind. I'm hoping this might just be the beginning. Call me a cockeyed optimist!
Post a Comment
<< Home