Wednesday, July 16, 2008

"Liberty" has no place in the modern Liberal ideology

There's a fantastic article in yesterday's Toronto Sun that explains the lack of freedom in the party that seems to think they're the most liberty-loving in Canada. Theo Caldwell writes:

.....
"In recent days, liberals around the world have made headlines for doing what they do best: Hectoring and bossing.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown lectured his countrymen on the evils of wasting food shortly before tucking into 14 courses over two meals at the G8 summit in Japan.
U.S. presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama has advised Americans that maintaining their homes at 72 F is unacceptable in the eyes of the global community.
Meanwhile in Canada, so-called human rights tribunals continue to pillory columnists and comedians, and liberal justices recently ruled a father had no right to ground his 12-year-old daughther."
.....

Yay! We totally took the cake for the most stupid example.

On a technical level, we on the right have facism on the far side of our spectrum, while the left has communism. To most lefties, communism is a positive term! (I know, I know.) But what people have to realize is that it doesn't work. Every applied example of communism has shifted quickly into facism. The "political spectrum" that so many see as a straight line is, in reality, a great big circle. I think that once some of these lefties admit that facism isn't just a 'far-right ideology,' but rather it is a scary middle point that any political party can creep into, they might be better able to see the error in their ways. But uh, that's just a theory.

It's a huge pet-peeve of mine to be labeled a facist. And it happens to all of us, all the time. The reality is so reverse it will make your head spin. Most Conservatives today are leaning more towards Libertarianism than ever, due to the recent legitimate fear of having our rights taken away.

The fact of the matter is that Liberals in Canada today do not fully understand the notion of liberty or fairness. They're all about controlling what citizens can and cannot do, patrolling their private matters, and handing out sentences without a fair trial--without evidence, even! "Liberalism" has turned into a kind of "Soft Totalitarianism" in a lot of cases, especially in this country. But they still all pride themselves on believing in freedom and unicorns and what-not, all the while accusing the right of being "facist." Personally, I think they should all drop the holier-than-thou act, get off their high horses and give their heads a shake. Or a smack, or whatever.

.....
"Specifically the term "liberal," which is derived from "liberty," ought to be replaced with its common synonym, "left-wing." The reason for this is the totalitarian impulse of those who espouse modern liberalism. If a person imagines his wisdom and privilege are sufficient to tell you what you may say, how much you can eat, and how to raise your children, chances are excellent that he is what we would call in common parlance a "liberal."

But of course, he is no freedom-loving fellow. And liberals, as they are known, do not always base their prescriptions for others' lives on their position or perspicacity.

Indeed, they have a much more powerful and devious rationale. That is, the Common Good. "Don't you care about (insert 'the children' or 'the whales' or, most often these days, 'the planet?') Such is demanded of anyone foolish enough to dissent from whatever orthodoxy is populating liberals' protest placards at the moment."
.....

Ah, the 'Common Good.' What a powerful tool that is! Disagree with man-made global warming, and not only are you a facist, but you hate the environment and the world and the people living in the world (especially the children, and ESPECIALLY the babies) too! Disagree with self-proclaimed environmentalist Al Gore and you're pretty much digging your own grave. Come on people, that's pretty messed up. I like how Caldwell words it:

.....
"The left does not have the evidence of history on its side--they do not even know what that evidence is. True leftists are even less aquainted with facts than with showers. Your divergence from the herd is sufficient to kindle their wrath."
.....

(If that's not facist, I don't know what is.)

.....
"As evidence, liberals refer to Al Gore's movie, while we cite the 20th century.
Nowadays, being liberal has nothing to do with freedom."
.....

15 comments:

rabbit said...

I use the phrases "classic liberal" and "progressive liberal" to differentiate between the two. Classic liberalism is libertarian. Progressive liberalism is socialist (more or less).

I found it ironic that so few bloggers who call themselves "liberal" objected to the attempted censorship of Maclean's magazine. They seemed utterly ignorant that freedom of expression and the press are fundamental to liberalism.

So now conservatives are liberals, and liberals are socialists, and socialists are fascists. Ronald Reagan might not have just been making excuses when he said "I didn't leave the Democratic party. The Democratic party left me."

Alex said...

It's not that "conservatives are liberal and liberals are conservative", it's that each side of the spectrum is made up of many different shades of ideologies. As TGB correctly pointed out, the political spectrum is a circle rather than a line. There are plenty of liberals AND conservatives who don't really give a damn about free speech - they only get riled up when their own pet cause is being repressed.

For instance, if the "human rights commissions" suddenly started to prosecute prominent left-wing activists who regularly accuse Israel of Genocide, you'd start to see much more opposition to the HRC's coming from the left wing.

At the same time, many of the right-wingers who are currently berating the HRC's would have probably stayed silent if the cases hadn't involved Muslims. And they (myself included) DID stay silent back when the HRC's were prosecuting holocaust deniers and other assorted lunatics. The current wave of anti-HRC activism only started when the cases began to involve Islam.

The problem is - as it has been throughout human history - that most people are happy to stay silent as long as it's someone ELSE that's being oppressed. Most people won't speak up against evil until it comes for them - and by then it's often too late.

On the bright side, there are plenty of "centrist" liberals AND conservatives who can disagree on many different issues while still agreeing on the fundamental requirements for human freedom. It's just unfortunate that we allow ourselves to become so polarized at times, and view each other as enemies rather than as fellow travellers trying to find the best path toward our shared future.

Swift said...

The full name of the Nazi party is translated as National Socialist Worker's Party. The left gets to claim them. The extreme right is anarchism, no government at all. Communist governments can easily convert to fascism because they are right next door on the linear political spectrum.

rabbit said...

Alex:

Although I sorta agree with everything you say, there's no doubt that in the last 50 years the conservatives have picked up the banner of classic liberalism that the liberals have dropped.

As evidence, the economist Milton Friedman is far more popular amongst conservatives than liberals, even though MF was as classically liberal as they come (and referred to himself as such).

As a consequence, the conservative party is now - in part - an uneasy alliance between social conservatives and libertarians.

Not being terribly socially conservative myself, I hope the libertarian side ultimately wins out.

rabbit said...

Swift:

I've never been satisfied with the linear political spectrum. The Political Compass, which uses a 2D spectrum, seems like a much better approach.

According to the compass, I'm half way between Friedman and Ghandi. I've no idea what that's supposed to mean.

KC said...

Not that conservatives have been particularly committed to the cause of liberty either. Remember it was they that stood up and objected when the Liberals tried to "liberalize" this countries marijuana laws. Apparently allowing individuals to decide what chemicals to ingest "sends the wrong message".

Alex said...

Rabbit:

I agree with you completely - I myself tend to be rather socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. That makes me more a libertarian than anything else, although I tend to avoid that label thanks to all the lunatics who gather under it's banner (eg. Ron Paul). I'm more of a Penn Gilette style libertarian :)

You're right that "conservatives" are currently the defenders of classical liberalism, and I wasn't trying to argue with that. I'm just attempting to stop (or at least slow) the slide into extreme political polarization which I see happening. It doesn't do us any good to alienate those on the left who ARE rational and who can be persuaded by rational discussion. I've seen what such thinking can do - I moved to Canada from a nation which exploded into civil war shortly after I left, largely due to insignificant differences and the refusal of either side to act in a rational manner. While the political divide in the western world isn't THAT bad yet, I'd prefer never to see it get to that point.

P.S. "kc" makes a damn good point too :) Many "conservatives" seem to be strangely silent on the issues of liberty for homosexuals, drug users, and prostitutes. So the idea that they're the current defenders of "classical liberalism" is at least partly flawed.

The Girl in Blue said...

Drug users and prostitutes are breaking the law. I think that's why a lot of people have a problem with them.

Alex said...

Yes, well, that's kinda the point, isn't it? In the middle east, converting away from Islam is against the law. Bad laws are just another form of discrimination and oppression.

Frank Hilliard said...

Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism has the fascists where they belong, on the Left with Liberals, Socialists, and Progressives. That's the key -- Progressives -- starting with the French Revolution. They're the people, atheists to a man, who believe it's possible to reorder human nature by applying pressure through social engineering.

The people on the other side are Classic Liberals (now called Conservatives) who believe man is a deeply flawed animal, capable of sin, who deserves the maximum amount of personal liberty.

Thus a Conservative believes in such things as democracy, the jury system, the stock market, and other fundamentals from English governance.

A Missourian said...

I'm glad Frank brought up Jonah Goldberg's marvelous book. I agree with his (Jonah's) premise that while fascists may be considered "right wing socialists", they are still socialists. They don't actually dwell on the right wing of the political spectrum, they are merely to the right of Communists on the socialist spectrum.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I'm just finishing Goldberg's book myself. In fact it is right beside me. I am very intrigued with this thought:

"American civilization is fundamentally liberal in the classical sense, and the ever-broadening reach of its principles of equality and liberty is both inevitable and desirable. Most conservatives share these underlying liberal values.

What they reject are the totalitarian assumptions imported into American liberalism by twentieth-century progressives. The problem is, we now live in a world conditioned by the progressive outlook. People understand things in progressive terms. Even if you are skeptical about such notions, you cannot convince other of the rightness of your own positions if you do not speak the lingua franca. If you believe that abortion is evil, you will not convince someone who rejects more categories like good and evil."

Something to keep in mind when debating with a progressive, I guess.

rabbit said...

Alex:

So the idea that they're the current defenders of "classical liberalism" is at least partly flawed.

As I said before, I find the conservative party today to be a strange brew that includes both classic liberalism and social conservatism. The reason it holds together is perhaps because everyone shares a common loathing for collectivism and identity politics.

But such a situation is likely to produce some odd effects.

And I share your reluctance to use the word "libertarian". People's perception of it stretches from anarchy to Ayn Rand.

Jane Dough said...

Excellent post GIB.
What I found most interresting about it was the 'love in' atmosphere it created in the comments section. Before any of the commenters get their shorts in a 'progressive' knot, let me say that all of the comments were well thought out and developed.
Keep up the good work to all concerned.

A Missourian said...

I would remind KC that progressives in the Wilson administration and later FDR administration were the first to use propaganda to vilify and ultimately outlaw drugs