The utopian dream world of Modern Liberalism always carries within it the seeds of its own apocalyptic destruction.March 1, 2021
The Cliff’s Notes version of Modern Liberalism’s self-induced destruction can be understood in this short clip from a discussion between Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo on the political landscape in the U.S. – 34 seconds of PURE LIBERAL HONESTY…
Kelly O’Connell at Canada Free Press has long observed the inevitably destructive nature of Liberalism and writes in his February 28, 2021 article, “Why is Leftism so Wildly Destructive?”
Having observed liberalism for many years, here are observations which would appear to explain its inevitably catastrophic nature. By reading history and observing current events one easily deduces that the more liberal ideas are applied, the more failure results. Total liberalism = absolute destruction.
The first and most obvious trait of Leftism is the theory lacks any provable core facts. This explains why they deify a cult of ‘science”—because if they represent “science” then they can beat down opponents with this shtick yet avoid scrutiny. Again, much Leftism relies on impossible to prove postulates such as Evolution or Global Warming. If Evolution provides an unrepeatable set of events, it is un-testable and fails the scientific method outright.
Another inescapable aspect of modern Leftism is its bottomless thirst for revenge. Revenge for what, you ask? Good question. Outside of slavery, which no one defends, it’s a litany of unproved accusations based on ever-increasing types of harm and oppression against an incredible, ever-expanding victim pool.
Leftist suffer from a sad bankruptcy of profound ideas or productive policies. This is why Leftists cannot separate from the umbilicus of Marxism. Because there are no wholesome thoughts associated with Leftism. Instead, following Marx’s crazy claims, they demand revolution in the most sanguine and sunny times.
Another unmistakable detail of Leftism is its addiction to chaos and evolving standards which are illogical, historically indefensible and clearly deleterious to society as a whole … Ultimately, Leftists employing shifting standards, rules and laws fosters a sense chaos, anarchy and nihilism. According to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle – If rules are not established, no one can predict the future. This gives Democrats a decided advantage. Because they never have to follow the rules in any encounter and will use subterfuge, dissembling and political pressure to rig a colossal and impossibly biased attack. Against a timid foe this makes them unbeatable.
The chief reason Leftism lacks rigor and historic structure is that it’s not really a political movement at all, but a religious belief system … Leftism as a pseudo-religious cult, it’s always adapting to a combination of the latest trending theories, presented as unimpeachable facts, then buttressed by statutes and punishments.
What is this crazed effort to overturn all human history for a techno-tyrannical Marxism – on the level of difficulty in trying to boil the ocean? Psalm 2 likewise asks “Why do the heathen rage?” The answer is because the Lord is scorned, so reality is rejected. At some level, all the present, crazed innovations are reducible to a war with God. Fake religions, driven by humanism are meant to replace authentic religion. As Eric Nelson wrote in The Theodicy of Liberalism, the entire argument is actually a debate over Theodicy (aka God’s goodness in a broken universe) which finally gives birth to liberalism. Two thousand years ago it started as a theological argument then migrated to the philosophical world and is now the hidden battle driving politics.
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico.
A much longer discussion of Liberalism can be found from a 2011 article at RedState.com, “The Failure of Liberalism.” You may notice at the link that it is referred to as “Part 1,” but a search of their site doesn’t reveal a Part 2.
The article is very long … perhaps a twenty minute read, but the excerpt that is most revealing is right at the beginning … “Modern American Liberalism is:”
✅ The (mistaken) belief that the restriction of Individual Liberty and private property rights can improve society through government efforts to design and manage economic and social structures.
✅ The (mistaken) belief that a mob of men can better manage society than core values that protect the individual and his property and enforcement of laws that ensure equal protection of citizens while limiting government and allowing individuals to protect themselves .
✅ The (mistaken) belief that social safety nets imposed on the populace are more compassionate than allowing the individual freedom to fail (or succeed) from one’s life decisions.
✅ The (mistaken) belief that involuntary re-distribution of wealth is moral.
The entire article is certainly one worth printing out and reading with a yellow highlighter. It is perhaps even more relevant in 2021 than when it was written in 2011.
It would be irresponsible to post a criticism of Liberalism without balancing the discussion with the alternative political position of Conservatism. One of the best articles I’ve run across is “The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism” – an Intercollegiate Studies Institute piece by Alfred S. Regnery.
These few excerpts are helpful, but the entire article is recommended.
Over the past half century, conservatism has become the dominant political philosophy in the United States. Newspaper and television political news stories more often than not will mention the word conservative. Almost every Republican running for office—whether for school board or U.S. senator—will try to establish his place on the political spectrum based on how conservative he is. Even Democrats sometimes distinguish among members of their own party in terms of conservatism.
Although conservatism as we know it today is a relatively new movement—it emerged after World War II and only became a political force in the 1960s—it is based on ideas that are as old as Western civilization itself. The intellectual foundations on which this movement has been built stretch back to antiquity, were further developed during the Middle Ages and in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century England, and were ultimately formulated into a coherent political philosophy at the time of the founding of the United States. In a real sense, conservatism is Western civilization.
The basic foundations of American conservatism can be boiled down to four fundamental concepts. We might call them the four pillars of modern conservatism:
The first pillar of conservatism is liberty, or freedom. Conservatives believe that individuals possess the right to life, liberty, and property, and freedom from the restrictions of arbitrary force.
The second pillar of conservative philosophy is tradition and order. Conservatism is also about conserving the values that have been established over centuries and that have led to an orderly society.
The third pillar is the rule of law. Conservatism is based on the belief that it is crucial to have a legal system that is predictable, that allows people to know what the rules are and enforce those rules equally for all.
The fourth pillar is belief in God. Belief in God means adherence to the broad concepts of religious faith—such things as justice, virtue, fairness, charity, community, and duty. These are the concepts on which conservatives base their philosophy.
Will we ever find a point of agreement between Conservatism and Liberalism? Well, let’s just conclude with this quote from an article at The Boston Globe, “Why Republicans and Democrats will never agree.”
Unfortunately, according to Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist who studies morality and politics at the University of Virginia, our minds might not work that way. In his new book, “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion,” Haidt (pronounced “height”) argues that we’re mistaken about what’s really going on when we disagree about politics. We like to think that our opinions are shaped by reason and information. But the truth, Haidt says, is that many of our positions are intuitive and irrational at their core–driven by passions that we didn’t choose, don’t understand, and can’t articulate.