The View From 1776

Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, and Fascists

These are just different names all referring to the atheistic, secular collectivism that the laboratory of history has devastatingly repudiated.  American liberals (again calling themselves progressives) nonetheless cling to their secular religious faith, urging the nation once more to risk plunging over Niagara Falls in a rotten barrel.

Reader Mark Van Noy, in the message posted below, takes me to task for using the term liberal-progressive.  I agree with what he has to say.

And I’m not unmindful of the distinction he makes.  Elsewhere in my postings I have covered the history of the misappropriation of the name liberal by the forces of socialism.  In What is Liberalism? I explored the matter at length.

Only recently have I begun to use the term liberal-progressive, because only recently have liberals begun anew to call themselves progressives.  As Mr. Van Noy notes, this is a political disguise to conceal their direct roots in socialism.

The term liberalism originally applied to the British Whigs, who in the 17th century opposed James II’s usurpation of power and, after his deposition, wrote the 1689 English Bill of Rights.  In 1776, liberalism was the opposite of today’s liberalism, advocating maximum possible individual economic and political liberty, exemplified by Adam Smith’s laissez-faire doctrine in the “Wealth of Nations.” 

In contrast, today’s liberals advocate tight Federal regulation of all economic and political liberty, but revel in unrestrained hedonistic sensuality.  Liberty in 1776 meant freedom from arbitrary government action and confiscation of private property.  For today’s liberals, liberty is license to dive for maggots in the cesspool of Hollywood entertainment, for drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, marital infidelity, and for foul-mouthed incivility to those who disagree with them.

Those whom I call liberal-progressives are the successors to the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century, exemplified by Teddy Roosevelt’s efforts to emulate the great scientific, academic, commercial, and military success of Bismarck’s German Empire.  As did the Soviet Union after 1917, Bismarck’s Germany after our Civil War seemed to American socialists to prove the superiority of a collectivized government directed by technicians.  “New Republic” founder Herbert Croly, in his “The Promise of American Life,” as well as his fellow editor Walter Lippmann in “A Preface to Politics,” pronounced Jeffersonian individualism a prescription for mediocrity.

Speaking for the socialists in the Northeast, the upper Midwest, and the Far West, they called for a strong man who would simply overpower Congress and state assemblies and impose a government run by technocrats.  They got their man in 1933 with the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt.

Mr. Van Noy writes:

While I agree with the premise of your statement, I take measured umbrage at the term “liberal-progressive.” ?“Liberal-progressive” is a classic oxymoron. ?Liberals have assigned themselves the label of “progressive” but it is a self-aggrandizing act meant to disguise the true character of their philosophy and claim moral high-ground that rightfully belongs to conservatives. ?Seeing this ruse repeated by conservatives underscores the evil genius of Josef Goebbles, arguably history’s greatest propagandist, when he said, “Tell a big enough lie loud enough and long enough and people will accept it as truth.”

Liberalism seeks to impose forced social equilibrium at the expense of all other things.? Liberalism promotes large government and punishes individual initiative.? Liberalism promotes the “collective good” and represses individual freedom. ?Liberalism seeks the lowest common denominator. ?Liberalism punishes winners and rewards sloth. ?Liberalism assumes and encourages the least human nobility.? Liberalism is an apologist for bad behavior and evil endeavor. ?Liberalism is the antithesis of progress.??

Liberals would be more aptly labeled “liberal-regressive,” for it is their objective to destroy advances made through civilized individual liberty and?entrepreneurialism in the world’s most advanced society, where competition is the engine of progress,?and revert to the antediluvian practices of collectivism, where God is prohibited, human life is valueless, human dignity is eschewed in praise for underachievers, individuality is forbidden, and competition is smothered by the bureaucratic inertia of big government.

“Liberal-progressive” is only one of the lies that Liberals preach to promote themselves or vilify conservatives.? Another?of these is that “political conservatism is analogous to fascism.”? In reality, the opposite is true;? political liberalism is analogous to fascism.? Proof:??Hitler’s “Nazi” Party is perhaps the most famous fascist organization in history.? “Nazi” is a shortened form of the German name of Hitler’s party, which was “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” (NSDAP).? Translated into English, this means?“National Socialist Worker’s Party.”?? As?even the least observant among us can readily see, the “Nazis” were SOCIALISTS.? Socialism is the political philosophy of the “left,” or “liberal” sector, of our political spectrum.??Ipso facto: ?Liberals are fascists and fascism?is not only?analogous to socialism, it IS?socialism ... by another name.??

To understand this fact is instructive.??Once you understand it, perplexing aspects of liberalism gain new coherence and texture. ?The mysteries dissolve into “Aha!” and liberal acts are easier to comprehend and predict.? For instance, it becomes clear why the liberal wing of the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) ruled against individual property rights and in favor of collectivism in KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON while the conservative wing ruled in favor of individual property rights and against collectivism;? liberals are communist/socialist/fascist (synonymous terms) and conservatives are protectors of individual liberty.? Liberals believe in government owning everything and using it for the “collective good.”? Karl Marx expressed it this way:? “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.”? Communism, socialism, and fascism all seek this sociopolitical nirvana;? this “Neverland” where everyone is rich and no one is poor.? In practice, however, socialism is a Stygian voyage to the pit of desperate poverty for all except the elite, who live debauched lives in their Dachas on the Black Sea.? We have almost a century of proof of this in the largest, most hideous lab-experiment every conducted ... the former Soviet Union.

When the left uses a label, conservatives should examine its meaning and take exception before the big lie becomes “truth” in the minds of the easily led as a consequence of our own foolish acquiescence.

Visit MoveOff Network Members