Liberalism and the Left

LARRY ANDERSON
Larry Anderson

I rarely reference Democrats and Republicans in this column for good reason.

Today’s political pugilism isn’t really between two political parties; it is betwixt the radical Left and a conservative Right forced into a defensive posture.

Parties are secondary and in numerical decline as the independent category widens in frustration.

Not everyone will agree with that.

Before you disagree, however, ask yourself where have all the moderate Democrats gone? They no longer exist in Congress; there are no Scoop Jacksons or Tip O’Neills left. Conservative Democrats, always rare, have fled like mules from a barn on fire.

Any common sense Democrats who understand the value of getting along have been ordered into silent conformity. Dissent and disobedience are not allowed.

Make no mistake, Barack Obama rules. He is party disciplinarian.

The only line of political thought tolerated today is that espoused by the far Left. Singularity is what political correctness — indeed, all Leftist rhetorical strategy — is about. If that isn’t crystal clear by now, there is something seriously wrong with our collective political processing.

It is incredible how complete this political transformation has been on the Democratic side, but it didn’t happen overnight nor should all responsibility be placed on the narrow shoulders of the far-out Left.

Far Lefties are joyless political animals armed with obsession and an agenda for change. That is who they are, and they have made considerable headway. Propaganda works on the uninformed, and lies told often enough become the truth.

Much of the blame for this party destruction belongs to moderates who have allowed their influence to dissipate to the point of non-existence.

I don’t believe all Democrats have embraced the Left‘s positions regarding redistribution and government control and expansion, but there is no dissent from the ranks. Who dares on the Left to present an alternative point-of-view?

The radical Left’s leaders are Barack Obama, the Clintons, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, to name a handful in the most obvious positions of power.

The Left also dominates Big Media and the weakling academic world.

These are Leftists of the progressive sort. Progressive in this context is more tactical than philosophical. The idea is to move the country farther left bit by bit, law by law, school by school, bureaucracy by bureaucracy.

This way, there is no need for the violent revolution of, say, a Cuba when the same result can be achieved steadily with less risk to their precious selves. Therefore, Obama and the Clintons look different politically and in style compared to Fidel Castro, even though their goals are very much alike.

Nor are they similar to old-school liberals like JFK and LBJ who sought to make the country better within the democratic/constitutional design.

Today, the working goal of the Left is to break the country down and replace it with a socio/democratic state similar to several European countries.

Many Americans simply do not understand the Left and confuse its rhetoric with what it is. The Left’s manner of presentation and what they want to do are two very different things.

Perhaps a description from David Horowitz, a one-time radical Leftist who quit when he saw the truth of their extremism, will help. No one knows the American Left better than Horowitz.

From “The Surreal World of the Progressive Left”: “Rhetorically, they (the Left) are proponents of ‘equality’ but in practice they are committed enthusiasts of a hierarchy of privilege in which the highest ranks are reserved for themselves as the guardians of social righteousness. Rhetorically they are secularists and champions of tolerance, but in practice they are religious fanatics who regard their opponents as sinners and agents of civil darkness. Therefore, when they engage opponents it is rarely to examine the facts or refute an argument but rather to destroy the messenger and remove him from the field of battle.”

That is the essence of the modern Left. Hence, the growth in the politics of destruction.

The religious fanaticism Horowitz mentions is socialism. “Destroying the messenger” is straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook.

Horowitz’s characterization doesn’t apply to voters who only evoke Democrat loyalty on election Day. It doesn’t apply to well-intentioned liberals who just want to see good in the world and strive for peace and harmony.

It does apply to those in power striving for political domination and secularism.

You can relate Horowitz’s definition to the behaviors and attitudes of those in control or seeking it in the coming election run-up. You will understand its accuracy because you will hear it delivered directly or subtly.

Finally, be aware when cornered, the Left turns vicious. Watch for that too as resistance stiffens amid an increasingly oblique tirade.