The View From 1776

§ American Traditions

§ People and Ideas

§ Decline of Western Civilization: a Snapshot

§ Books to Read

§ BUY MY BOOK

Liberal_Jihad_Cover.jpg Forward USA

Thursday, November 04, 2004

A House Divided

Liberals just don’t get it.

————-
In the election postmortem, Democrats are anguishing about what went wrong.  It’s mostly in the vein of, “How could people be so stupid as not to vote for John Kerry?”  A few liberals, however, are saying, “Maybe we should be nicer to the red-state red-necks.  Tell them that we ‘respect’ their views, and confine our contempt for those views to the all-liberal venues like network TV, PBS, NPR, Hollywood, and ‘mainstream’ newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.”

Let’s say that any such conciliatory gestures will be purely cosmetic.  In that vein, take a look at New York Times’s columnist Maureen Dowd’s Red Zone piece in today’s edition.

The gulf between liberal-socialists and traditionalists is simply unbridgeable.  People who think of “coming together” as no more than a political back-scratching process don’t understand the problem.

A quick comparison of liberal-socialists’ core principles to those of traditionalists will make the difficulty clear.

Liberal-socialism’s core concept is that humans are all inherently decent and benevolent, provided that individualism, expressed in private property rights, can be eliminated by restructuring society.  Private property and individualism are the sources of all of humanity’s negative characteristics, notably selfishness, avarice, aggression, crime, and wars.  Criminals and terrorists are victims of social structures that support private property rights.

To restructure society and create heaven-on-earth, political and economic regulatory power must be collectivized at the national level, directed by councils of intellectuals, and administered by bureaucrats.  Perceiving individualism as an anti-social, evil paradigm, Liberal-socialists do everything possible to promote education and political discourse in terms of social classes: labor unions, the poor, blacks, Hispanics, feminists, homosexuals, et al.  Hence the welfare state and our educational system’s promotion of multi-cultural, politically-correct propaganda.

Having by 1918 rejected the idea of transforming America’s traditionalist society by the revolutionary means employed in France and Russia, liberal-socialist groups like the ACLU, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood work assiduously to corrode and destroy the moral principles of traditionalists.  Young people see little but hedonism in the media and are told by their teachers that pre-marital sex, abortion, and drugs are good things.

It is in that context that the eleven state constitutional amendments to define marriage as a union between one woman and one man played such a decisive role in the presidential election.

Traditionalists, in contrast, see human nature as God-given and unchanging.  Beginning with Plato, Aristotle and Judaism, on through Christianity, there is uniformity in this perception.  Humans have a fundamental nature, and that nature dictates that humans attain true happiness in pursuit of moral virtue.  Happiness is contrasted to sensual pleasure derived from external, materialistic agents like money, power, sex, and drugs.  In turn, the best political state is one that fosters individual morality and civic virtue, what Aristotle called the summum bonum, the supreme good.

Traditionalists understand that all humans have the potential for good or evil and that the trick is to tip the balance toward good.  Doing so is a matter of each individual opening his soul through prayerful meditation to God’s Word.  That doesn’t mean, as liberals sneer, that people hear voices in their heads telling them to do things.  It means that individuals, by reflecting on their own insignificance in the totality of God’s Creation, must look beyond themselves.  They must seek inspiration for how best to love and serve others.

On the macro political and social level, it means that caring for the unfortunate individuals (not social classes) of society is an individual moral responsibility that is best effected through voluntary groups such as churches, synagogues, and the Salvation Army.

These two paradigms cannot be blended into some sort of political compromise.  They stand like opposing armies arrayed on the battlefield. 

Liberals are intent upon imposing their secular and materialistic views upon all of society, by any means available.  In the extreme we get the French Revolution’s murderous Reign of Terror,  Stalin’s liquidation of an estimated twenty million Russians, and Hitler’s Holocaust.

In the milder version we endure in the United States, liberals have created a Federal bureaucracy many thousands of times larger than in 1900, and a judiciary that routinely legislates from the bench to “find” Constitutional rights that support the latest viruses oozing from the educational cesspools of elite universities.