In a recent discussion of Islam and its issues with violence and intolerance for unbelievers, I received a comment from a reader who, shall we say, disagreed with my conclusions — and expressed that disagreement rather forcefully. Unpleasant, as such things tend to be, but nevertheless, it did provide a window into the peculiar mindset of some who live on the progressive side of the spectrum, and thereby provided a teachable moment or two.
My reader opened the monologue with his conclusion that I was “Islamophobic, and therefore a racist.” He proceeded to educate me on the fact that there was no such thing as Islamo-fascism or Islamic extremism — that the current conflict between radical Islam and the West was simply a natural consequence of years of oppressing the poor in Third World countries through American hegemony. On a roll, my admirer then proceeded to inform me that there was no such thing as Communism, either — that neither the Soviet Union nor Red China had ever been a threat to the United States and that, in essence, the entire Cold War had been about the domination of the Third World by the First World. Then, he treated me to the customary bromide about those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
My pundit, who hailed from the Puget Sound area, in closing informed me that he was “embarrassed” that someone like me would live in this area and suggested I move to Nebraska — his original home state — “where I could be with other closed-minded folks like myself.” In a parting jab, he intoned that if he and his friends had their way, I would not receive one dime of healthcare reimbursement. He apparently hasn’t noticed that many of his compatriots in government and the health insurance industry have already thought of this idea — and are working hard to make it happen.
The instinct is to respond in kind, describing logical and historical mistakes one by one. One could, for example, point out that Islam is comprised of people from every race and nation, and therefore expressing concerns about the religion, its teachings, and the behavior of its followers is no more racist than expressing concerns about domestic violence or antisemitism. Islam, as demonstrated by the bombings of sacred sites in Iraq and India, is at its worst an equal opportunity destroyer. Questioning the teachings and actions that bring about such monstrosities is hardly racist. It seems that our friend wanted to remind me of how miserable, bigoted, and swine-like I really am by pulling out at least one insult from his arsenal. Logic and reason need not enter into such a discourse, of course.
The notion that Communism never existed, and that the Soviet Union and China were never a threat, is breathtakingly naive. For those of us who lived through Communism’s horrors: the Cuban missile crisis; the crushing of the Prague Spring; the brutal put-down of the Hungarian uprising; the gulags; fugitives shot and left hanging on the barbed wire of the Berlin Wall; proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and elsewhere; and the longstanding threat of Communist totalitarian superpowers armed to the teeth with nuclear and conventional weapons, realize what a foolish and laughable assertion this is. One wonders if this stunning ignorance of history is intentional, or simply a product of the postmodern revisionism and deconstructionism which seems to have replaced serious historical scholarship at most universities. I have no doubt forgotten much of the history which I learned over the years: I don’t recall what year the Hapsburgs took power, or the reasons for the Peloponnesian wars — but I do understand what happened in Europe and the rest of the world prior to the Nazi juggernaut, the dangers of profound denial of the threat posed by evil regimes, and the foolishness — and deadliness — of wishful thinking and appeasement. I may therefore be doomed to repeat history, having forgotten some of it — but one wonders what the consequences will be never having learned history in the first place.
Now, it is natural for humans to abstract and generalize from individuals to groups. I acknowledge that not every progressive person believes the kind of poppycock perpetrated by my perturbed pundit. It’s easy to understand that the most vocal members of the left today often espouses similar notions, which simple objective analysis quickly demonstrates as pure fantasy or propaganda. This and even more egregious examples can be seen by simply browsing the comments section of Huffington Post, The Nation, or Mother Jones. The list is long and painfully familiar to anyone who has followed the political or cultural scene of the last few years: Republicans are Hitler; conservative men are white supremacists; the root cause of terrorism is poverty; the solution to terrorism is making the Third World, our adopted welfare state; we are no different from the terrorists; those who resist the creeping culture of decadence harbor only malice, bigotry, and intolerance. The list could go on for far longer. Pronouncements that are repeated with bone-wearying regularity, slogans with no substance, are a staple of argument for many on the left. It’s remarkable how people can be so passionate, even religious, about something that can easily be disproven, and keep using false premises until it becomes de facto truth.
On observing those who hold such positions, several things become evident: first, as a group, such folks are indeed a glum lot. They seem to spend an inordinate amount of time fretting about how terrible the world is (thanks to Amerikkka!), how malicious and hateful are conservatives and Republicans, how immoral their own country and its leaders are, and how hate-filled are everyone who does not see the world through their peculiar lenses. They never seem to find anything good in life, noteworthy or praiseworthy. Their faint praise extends only to the base and depraved, never to the exalted and noble. Their hatred for their own country is palpable, as they see America as not a shining light but rather the root of all evil in the world. They lack the necessary courage and convictions to find a national home that is better suited to their beliefs. They are entrapped by the prosperity, freedom, safety, and ease of life they deny or decry. During the Vietnam War, conscientious draft resisters put their money where their mouth is and, with gonadal fortitude, moved to Canada; today’s valiant heroes “speak truth to power” from the sordid decadence of lavish mansions or ski chalets in Aspen. Enormous energy goes toward rationalizing and justifying the behavior of genuinely heinous regimes — Castro, Saddam Hussein, Kaddafi, and the violent fascists of radical Islam — and none celebrating those who sacrificed and died to protect their right to voice such insanity freely and to prosper free of such oppressive tyranny.
This observation leads to another conclusion: individuals on the left are more tribal than national. The allegiance and loyalty of such progressives are not to their country — working for and hoping for more national unity, peace, and progress — but rather to their particular interest group, whose narrow agenda dominates their worldview and becomes the totality of their focus. They are not Americans who seek to improve the country’s environment, but environmental activists who view all who differ about programs and priorities as greedy polluters and evil capitalists. They are not Americans who genuinely seek, by personal effort and compromise, to improve the lot of the poor and underprivileged but who prefer instead to exploit the poor as political pawns, demagoguing those who seek the same goals by economically rational means. They are not Americans who seek racial healing and cultural unity but rather use race as a lever to power and charge “racism” freely and liberally — all the while being viciously racist against non-whites who dare to leave the liberal plantation. To be on the left is to be gay, lesbian, or transgender; pro-choice or feminist; environmental activist or animal-rights warrior; anti-globalism anarchist or antiwar protester — but never a member of a unified national community striving through compromise and cooperation to address core issues of discrimination, tolerance, economic or environmental progress, national security. The tribe comes first: their grievance is their only allegiance; the nation — if considered in any positive light at all — is nothing more than an alliance of tribes, bound together by collective victimization, whose goals are to seek sufficient power to coerce their intellectual and moral inferiors into submitting to their dictates. Multiculturalism’s natural history and inevitable outcome are to divide and conquer rather than unite and restore.
To watch the postmodern left is to observe projection at its finest: scream “Racist!” at conservative whites while ridiculing and demeaning conservative blacks; physically assault counter-protesters at “peace” rallies; preach “tolerance” and “diversity” while telling those with whom you disagree to move to Nebraska; decry the Christian Right for “ramming their values down your throat,” all the while force-feeding your values to those who attend the schools you control or listen to the media you direct; holler about “censorship” and “First Amendment rights” when criticized, while silencing those not satisfying your stifling PC speech codes. You can be assured that if a progressive accuses you of doing something heinous, they are showing the same flaw in much greater measures towards someone else somewhere else.
A good friend is a man who is quite liberal in politics. As a teacher, he is also a regional representative for the teacher’s union. There are fewer fundamentals we have a disagreement about than you might imagine. When discussing social and political issues, we often air our differences. However, surprisingly, we often agree on core principles and differ mainly on how to implement them. Our friendship and commonality outweigh our politics — we are a microcosm of real community, nationality, and unity. Our unity is not derived from a tribal mindset, but rather from a transcendent one, rooted in our values and our relationship’s supremacy, which persists despite our differences. The postmodern left loves the pornography of ideas: not the deep, transformational passion for beauty, character, and worthy cause, sacrificing self for the good of the beloved, but rather ideas as harlots, useful to satisfy their lust for power and control, lascivious but cheap, discarded like yesterday’s condom when their utility passes and another conquest looms.
The left is hardly alone in its postmodern cynicism. There is plenty of it to go around on the right, as the product of passion for power and utilitarian secularism. Not all on the left fit this stark description — but if you look around, you will find suitable subjects faster than a Starbucks in Seattle — on TV screens, in college lecture halls, at protest marches, on the front page of your local news rag. Their voices are shrill and without timbre, their volume is loud, and they hope to conceal their inner emptiness with external intensity. Like Dr. Faustus, they have sold their souls for the moment’s might and magic. As their power weakens, their fear and hatred multiplies, the inevitable consequence of ditching principles for power and character for control.
Classic liberalism fought broad battles with lasting impact, propelled by noble principles: women’s suffrage, the right to unionize, civil rights, federal health care, and retirement benefits for seniors and the poor. While some of these visions have subsequently proven misguided or ill-conceived due to government hubris or the hard light of social reality, they arose out of a sincere desire to bring about a more just, equal, and compassionate country. The postmodern liberal has ditched the principles while flying the pennants, perverting past triumphs into petulant tirades. Their battles are small, their motives are self-serving, their philosophy is nihilism, and their priority is power.
Welcome to their world – where diversity is division, tolerance is tyranny. The merchants of multiculturalism have a vision for you. It’s yours for the taking — if only you’ll see things their way.
