Looking Back At The Future Of The Left

Eteraz has a post by Lawrence of Arabia, entitled The Future Of The Left, in which the author begins his piece with an interesting remark:

The crisis began, perhaps, with Stalin. So many of the intellectuals of the Left found it necessary to take a side as Europe divided itself between east and west. Lukacs gambled on what he knew was an wretched regime if for no other reason than that it was the only regime with the possibility of resisting the hegemony of capitalism and its accompanying political liberalism. [emp-SC&A]

Notwithstanding this bit of historical revisionism (Lukacs rejected orthodox Marxism when the reality of the real world failures of Marxism became evident for all to see), the Lawrence of Arabia makes a clear point: The Marxists feared the inevitable changes that capitalism and political liberalism would bring. The Marxists could not and would not abide an empowered people demanding a voice in their own destiny. Lukacs made the conscious decision that a ‘wretched’ and oppressive regime was preferable to an empowered people.

Lawrence of Arabia then goes on to equate the failures of the Marxists to what he sees as the moral failures of free and democratic regimes. They are the real target of his piece. If those democracies are not neo-leftist democracies, they are equivalent to the failed Marxist regimes. He speaks of the great projects that liberalism might address and then, in apparent bitterness notes

…Thus as human beings seek a sense of common direction, a sense of community that transcends the social and economic realm of private relations, the only place they had left to turn was to religious conservatives. The effects have been ugly and brutal: from the emergence of the Evangelical Right in the United States to Extremism in the name of Islam throughout the Muslim world to militant Hinduism in India.

With a few words, Lawrence of Arabia manages to distort the reality and differences between competing ideas, philosophies and interests.

First of all, the great democracies (read: economically successful and home to great institutions of learning) did not thrive because religion was the overseer. While religious principles may have influenced democratic nations, those principles were not religious dictate. In fact, in virtually every democracy, there is a clear separation between church and state. Nations that claim theocratic influences as their dominant political foundation are failed nations.

The Evangelical Right is nothing like Islamic Extremists. To attempt to draw a connection is absurd, on many levels. The Christian evangelicals do not advocate the kind of enforced religion Islamic extremists do, not do they endorse the kind and magnitude of violence we see on our TV screens. In addition, the primary focus of the Christian evangelicals has been on good works. Whereas the liberals of days gone by focused on helping their fellow man (think Peace Corps,etc.), today’s leftists cannot be bothered.

The vast majority of aid in Africa and South America, for example, are spearheaded by Evangelical Christians. The Left cannot be bothered to help because there is no upside for them to do that- money ‘wasted’ on Africans is money that cannot be spent on Leftist political and ideological causes. There might those who jump up and say that evangelical Christians offer aid with ‘strings’- that has long not been the case.

In any event, where are the Muslim extremists, whom you compare to evangelical Christians, when it comes to helping in Darfur? Where were they in Algeria, as the GIA was on a decades long rampage and orgy of death and destruction? Where are the anti slavery activists in Mauritania?

Lawrence of Arabia also notes that

European nations such as France and the Netherlands and even Britain, under the banner of liberalism, seem to be seeking a new form of fascism in the name of social “integration”: how far, really, is Franofication and Dutch assimilationism from the legacy of Germanism and its rigid insistence on its own self-identification? In a different form, a similiar transformation seems to plague the States. The emphasis on freedom and “Democracy”, on behalf of which the United States is willing to launch a violent Crusade for the salvation of humanity, has become mob rule. The rights tradition, the liberalism which once undergirded representative government, has become increasingly suspended, unimportant…

Those remarks are absurd, in their entirety. In Democracies Don’t Care, we wrote

We do not need to assure Muslims that we are caring. We do not need to bestow a status upon Islam that we not bestow upon other religions and other faiths. Muslims are not special and they are not deserving of special status.

Why? Because in a free society, we don’t care about your beliefs. We do care about your actions and behavior. You are free to integrate and to assimilate into our society in whole or in part. We really don’t care. Do not tell us we need to care about your beliefs and your concerns above all else and above our own beliefs. If you do try to make that assertion, you will soon be surprised at how easily you will be marginalized and resented- not for your beliefs, but rather, for your attempt to jump to the head of line. You are not more important than anyone else.

We don’t care if your are a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu. You are free to worship as you believe. In fact, that is the last thing we worry about. America and free nations have long ago dispensed with the notion that what you believe how you believe, is relevant to peaceful existence. Notwithstanding the religious voices from the pulpits and the media, America has learned to live and let live.

We want to know if you are a good neighbor or an honest business person. We want to know that you’ll make sure to keep a watchful eye on your kids and ours, in the neighborhood we live in. We don’t really care how you dress (any more than they care how we dress) and we don’t care what language you speak in your home. We don’t care which newspapers you read or which TV news broadcast you watch. In fact, you are free to change the channel…

If you don’t like offensive cartoons (and we don’t blame you!), you are free not to buy that paper or cancel your subscription. You are free to boycott advertisers and write scathing letters to the editor.

You are not free to react violently or to threaten those you disagree with. Western democracies are just that- free societies and we do not operate under the ‘laws of the jungle.’ If we did, we would not take kindly to even the first display of barbaric behavior. Your dissent is a right. But it is also a privilege, contained in the same way a painting is contained in a frame. You are free to paint the canvas as you please- as long as you stay within the borders of what is deemed acceptable behavior- that is, behavior that is non violent or destructive.

Just as clearly, we are free to ignore your protests or disagree with your expressions. That is our right- to ignore you- and there is nothing you can do to change that. Your protests are not a mandate of recognition or credibility.

In fact, even integration is not a hammer democracies wield over anyone’s head. We also noted that

 

‘Melting’ into the melange that is America is optional and always has been. In fact, there are communities that integrate fully and others that choose to integrate partially. It is not a zero sum game. There are Hindus and Hasidic Jews that have been here for a few generations and they retain as much or as little ethnic identity as they desire. There are Muslims that came to these shores with nothing, and within a few years and with a lot of hard work, have found economic and personal success. Certainly, the Amish… keep themselves apart by choice as he says, but they too, are clearly part of the American landscape. They too, can be counted as a community that has enjoyed success in America.

American minorities are integrated into the social fabric of the country because there is an interdependence with society at large.

In A Beautifully Dark Place, Dr Sanity speaks of a real- and dangerous cognitive dissonance.

I am, of course, waiting to see the site champion Michael Richard’s racist rant, which Gloria Alred insists isn’t free speech, but is “hate speech”. I will be waiting until the cows come home, I fear, because the minions of the left are incapable of making such an abstract connection. To them, “hate speech” is any speech they happen to oppose [emp-SC&A], and it most certainly does not include speech by those poor, oppressed terrorists (terrorism doesn’t actually exist in their minds except as a natural response to the evil of American Imperialism, Bush, or Israeli oppression–take your pick). For them, it is only really truly “hate speech” if the hate is directed at one of their specially-designated victim groups who are deemed to require special laws to protect their civil rights. Did you know that the left is deeply concerned about religious intolerance….but only for Muslims (one of their newest addition to their special victims unit) and NOT, of course, for the pervasive and nitpicking intolerance they routinely exhibit toward any symbol, word, or expression of Christianity. Now, isn’t that shocking?

Dr Sanity has a point. Where are the voices from the lft denouncing all kinds of religious intolerance (and worse), regardless of it’s origin? What about cafeteria rights, freedoms selectively applied?

This sort of cognitive dissonance and intellectual insanity is not because they are particularly ignorant of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, it is because as Duke suggests, they have a very specific political agenda that has been slowly but surely changing American society into their utopia. This “social engineering” on their part doesn’t give a damn about free speech except insofar as it can be used to forward their socialist agenda. It doesn’t give a damn about freedom of religion, except insofar as it can be used to forward their socialist agenda.

In short, it doesn’t give a damn about the US Constitution, except insofar as it can be convoluted and manipulated to create their socialist paradise, where real freedom of speech—including the freedom to be offensive and (gasp) hurt other people’s feelings—is but a dream; and real freedom of religion wouldn’t exist anyway because they don’t believe in God in the first place.

To extend the cognitive dissonance even further, they will defend to the death the terrorist’s “rights” to kill us and plot against us; but poor Michael Richards (who probably is undoubtedly a racist) must be thrown to the PC wolves for daring to utter his brand of hate speech, while Danny DeVito remains a darling (isn’t he soooo cute?) because his hate is directed at an acceptable recipient.

Lawrence of Arabia sees American and western democracies as tainted- and that

…explains the seeming puzzlement of the Bush administration when democratic elections in the Middle East brought success for political parties of which the United States could never approve.

Lawrence of Arabia offers up a rather childish and superficial understanding of what constitutes a real democracy.

The last thing a real democracy is about are election results. Real democracies are about institutions that guarantee access and equal protection for all citizens and for the rights of all citizens.

Western democracies are under no obligation to recognize or endorse electoral results, simply because they came about as the result of fair and free elections.

Adolph Hitler was elected in the 1933 German elections, with an agenda that was clear and unequivocal. Had the western democracies dealt with Hitler appropriately and decisively, 50 million souls would have been saved.

That the racist, bigoted and hateful Hamas was elected in free and fair election, gives them no special status. Their agenda too, is well known and clear. The western democracies and the civilized world are under no obligation to consider ‘ITBACH AL YAHUD!’- SLAUGHTER THE JEW!- as an acceptable form of political, cultural, educational or religious expression equal to their own- and that too, is a part of the ‘communal pilgrimage of truth’ you speak of.

The Left Lawrence of Arabia pines for is the Left that looks backward in time- and that Left is as dangerous and destructive now as it was then.