| « | Fran's Sunday Ruminations: Prophets, Jesters, And Destroyers |
»
|
|
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Dictatorial Fantasies
By way of the esteemed Mike Hendrix, we have this article from Dr. Pat Santy:
Lest anyone have any doubts about exactly where the lunatic left stands, I urge you to read this incredible column up at Daily Kos, touting the wonderfulness of Iran (in comparison to the U.S., of course). You guessed it! Iran is a veritable "progressive" paradise!Iran has invested its oil wealth in universal education, healthcare, infrastructure bringing clean water and electricity to more than 98 percent of its people, and economic progress. Military spending is a paltry $91 per capita compared to more than $1,500 per capita in the United States and Israel. The social and economic achievements of the revolutionary regime in Iran in the past 25 years look quite progressive in reducing poverty and social inequalities, and as the society liberalises toward a more secular democratic regime, even better progress can be expected in the future. Compared to rising inequality in the United States and Israel, ranked numbers one and two for social inequality among developed nations, the Iranians look pretty damn good.That, of course, is the problem. If Iran, rather like Venezuela, becomes a regional leader and examplar of social democracy, it becomes a threat to the corporatist and militarist elites that dominate the political classes of Washington and Tel Aviv and exploit the mineral and oil wealth of underdeveloped nations.
There's more in this vein, but you don't really need to endure it. Santy tees off on this bilge in an impressive display of incredulous fury:
Can we finally call them socialists? How about fascist pig-enabling opportunists who would sell out their own country to the Islamic animals who hang gays for being gay and women for adultery. How about treasonsous scum, who clearly want the enemies of western civilization to come out on top, because they are so incredibly stupid to believe "civil liberties" and "middle class" values are in grievous danger in the U.S., but triumphantly exemplified by one of the most repressive and violent regimes in history.The term "useful idiot" is far too kind for these whackjobs. These people are dangerous morons whose cognitive thinking skills have been so impaired by the intellectual hogwash that passes for learning in our academic institutions these days, that they couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. They live in a universe in which there is no objective reality; a universe where truth is relative and their feelings are all that matter. And even their feelings, by any objective standard, are completely dysfunctional.
Your Curmudgeon cannot help but agree. Yet it is curious that Santy, a clinical psychologist, should have stopped short in this fashion. There's an important set of psychological influences at work, a pseudo-rational gestalt that sits at the heart of left-liberalism. If it were more widely understood, perhaps the American people would be better equipped to resist its blandishments.
Dr. Peter Breggin, author of The Psychology Of Freedom, noted in an impressive lecture some years ago that the foundation stone of left-liberalism is good intentions. The left-liberal judges everything according to his perception of the intentions of those involved. He evaluates every statement according to his opinion of the intentions of the speaker. More, for the left-liberal, good intentions are a permanent "get out of jail free" card; he whose intentions are good need never fear being called to answer for any crime by the court of left-liberal opinion. It's worse than that: once left-liberal Smith has adjudged speaker Jones's intentions as bad, Smith will reflexively align against Jones in every way. Whatever Jones says must be wrong; whatever Jones does, no matter its consequences, must have dark motives behind it.
To understand this is to understand the whole of left-liberal thought. Its implications for political discourse are easily traced:
- The left-liberal naturally identifies good intentions with his own intentions: to bring justice to the oppressed and succor to the downtrodden; to reduce inequalities and promote tolerance; in general terms, to make people better off, and to get them to feel better off.
- Left-liberalism itself promotes particular approaches toward these things: broadly speaking, State intervention to re-engineer all of society, including the attitudes of everyone in it, according to left-liberal notions of justice and fairness.
- Since persons of other convictions (i.e., conservative or libertarian) dispute the constructiveness of such thoroughgoing statism, the left-liberal naturally deems them to have bad intentions: selfish at best, malevolent at worst.
- Therefore, conservatives and libertarians must be contradicted in discourse and opposed in policy contests no matter what they say or do, even if what they do has beneficial consequences in practice.
- Further, as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," anyone perceived as an adversary to conservatives or libertarians must be presumed to have good intentions himself, and must therefore receive the left-liberal's endorsement and support. This is particularly important in international matters. Political collectives -- nations -- are routinely classified as have and have-not. The only modalities of collective interaction between nations are diplomacy and war.
Indeed, good intentions have such potency in the left-liberal's imagination that he will readily believe anything said by anyone he deems to possess them. He will readily defend anything done by such a person, often by resorting to arguments he would categorically reject if offered in defense of the actions of an ideological adversary. Recent history provides many examples; note how staunchly left-liberals defend Ortega, Castro, and Chavez, each of whom has thousands of murders and oppressions to account for, but would happily see Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Chile's General Augusto Pinochet boiled in oil.
The inescapable terminus of left-liberal thought is the Benevolent Dictator.
It's been said that every man believes himself worthy of power over others. While that isn't strictly true -- your Curmudgeon certainly doesn't want it -- enough people believe themselves pure of heart to provide the world with an inexhaustible fund of candidates for God-Emperor for Life. But the most ardent aspirants to the throne of the world are those who believe themselves incapable of error, because all that's required to preserve them from erring is their unquestioned good intentions.
There have been rulers of nations and empires who believed exactly that: Stalin, Mao, Castro, Juan Peron, Ruhollah Khomeini, Mullah Omar, Pol Pot, Ne Win, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il. Among their commonalities, they were absolutely intolerant of dissent. Whether cheerfully or sorrowfully, they liquidated all opposition with relentless thoroughness. They were unabashed about the "necessity" and proclaimed each pogrom a stroke in "defense of the revolution."
Left-liberals defended each of these men from criticism. They were the enemies of the United States, that awful patriarchal capitalist nation ruled by Dead White European Males where sex requires a priest's approval, blacks still slave under the lash, women are compelled to wear corsets and high heels, and homosexuals are aborted at birth. Therefore, they must have good intentions; their statements must be trustworthy; however bloody in the near term, their deeds must be for the ultimate common good. At any rate, they're vastly preferable to those Adam Smith-worshipping Jesus-jumping yokels who think that government best which governs least.
The Daily Kos article Santy cites is a perfect example of this mechanism. Iran is quite explicitly an enemy of the United States. Therefore, it receives the left-liberal's presumption of benevolence, and his unquestioning acceptance of its masters' statements despite all evidence to the contrary. More, if it must hang a few adulterers and homosexuals, undoubtedly it does so with great regret, but "you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." The common good is all, and what else could a benevolent dictatorship intend but the greater good of all its subjects? Even those it had to slaughter, who really ought to have known better and had to be "saved from themselves."
As bad as this is, it pales in comparison to the tide of destruction left-liberals would unleash were they to achieve unchallenged hegemony over these United States. For just as they excuse the enemies of America for anything and everything, they would be just as quick to grant themselves the same benison. Opposing voices would be silenced by gunshot; contradictory evidence would go straight down the memory hole.
The laws of the Universe are indifferent to our opinions and intentions. Facts don't change to suit the preferences of him who confronts them. Conservatives and libertarians understand that; left-liberals do not. Which is why the dismantling of all remaining Constitutional and traditional restraints on power is the left-liberal's perennial Grail, and why the maintenance and reinforcement of those barriers must forever be at the top of the Right's agenda.
Comments
Fran,
As usual you hit the nail on the head. I hope you don’t mind my stealing part of your post to comment at: http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/
It is a Venezuelan blog in English. The upcoming elections there ( Dec 03) will see this theme played out. I am predicting 2 possible scenarios: 1) Hugo Chavez will steal the election (again) and claim a “landslide” victory 2) Rosales will win and a “state of emergency” - martial law will be declared. Either way I fear blood will be spilled.ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!!
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ on 11/15/2006 at 07:09 PMIt gives me shivers to think about it, but I know you speak the truth.
Posted by on 11/15/2006 at 10:13 PMexamplar of social democracy
Cripes, will someone please clue this mindless twit in that they hang gays in Iran as a spectator sport.
Is there no behavior so dastardly and vile that the left is not capable of ignoring it for a political purpose?
Social democracy? No.
NSDAP much closer…
Posted by Purple Avenger on 11/16/2006 at 04:56 AMit’s nimby liberalism at it’s best. it’s OK for ‘those” guys to do that stuff, because they’re “over there” and “it’s part of their culture”. God forbid you mention in Santy’s backyard that morals have value or that men and women are fundamentally different.
Posted by og on 11/16/2006 at 09:34 AMThat explains why people are clamoring to move to Iran...why, it’s a virtual paradise!
Taking the side of the enemy is just a way to say “Look at me...I’m a much better person than you!”
Leftism is always a Death Wish, wheteher on a personal, societal or national level.
Posted by Noel on 11/16/2006 at 09:56 AMInsightful, interesting, and correct analysis…
Posted by on 11/16/2006 at 01:33 PMThis is all very true, the leftist fantasy world is a unique beast. I would add that not only does the Left universally condemn said dissenters, but it also makes blatant assumptions about your beliefs.
For example, when being introduced to a friend’s friend, who was in fact a Leftist, the person immediately commented “You look like a Republican.” Note that this was assumed before the person knew anything of my political views. Just because I dressed in a suit and tie to a social function and refrained from the modern “emo” style of dress, it was assumed I was a Republican (when in fact I am not, though I do tend to vote that way) and therefore an enemy worthy of condemnation. It is ironic that the Left tends to be more guitly of stereotyping and prejudice than the Right.
When I expressed that though I am generally of a conservative/libertarian persuasion, I am not a registered Republican and actually loathe the two-party system as a rule… the Leftist exploded in a tirade of anger about how people like me were responsible for poverty, racism and horrible wars. Once again I did not even express my views on these subjects… the mere mention of a conservative bent was enough to classify me as a villain bent on world domination.
My friend, who was doing the introductions, was mortally embarassed. He was a moderate who could, apparently, find some common ground with both of us, though how that was possible is somewhat puzzling in retrospect.
Posted by Xealot on 11/17/2006 at 10:15 AMFran,
When I read this I couldn’t help but be reminded of Hannah Arendt’s thesis in Eichmann in Jerusalem, that humans can do and defend the most vile actions if they believe that the world will become a better place for it. I have come to the realization that the weltanshaung of most liberals is driven by the fatt that they are materialists. Most of them see the world only in material terms; abstractions like freedom have no meaning for them. I truly believe that if everyone were well fed, well clothed and well housed in the world they would be content to have a Fascist dictatorship. After all, these are the people who supported Stalin and Mao.
Posted by Doug on 11/18/2006 at 12:27 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
