“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, from his first Inaugural Address
Does that sound like the US government as you experience it today? Responsible citizens are tax chattel for the federal government to bestow its (your) largess on its supporters, creating a dependent under-class and available pool of votes in a process that makes a mockery of democracy. As I’ve mentioned before, the push to erode republicanism in favor of direct democracy is done intentionally as demographic warfare is far more effective in such a system, with a political climate that amounts to little more than a racial spoils system. 44% of the Democrat Party’s voting share is non-white and growing, both in percentage as it becomes more explicitly anti-white and anti-American and legacy Americans abandon the party’s naked neo-Marxism, and in real numbers as the United States becomes a global dumping ground.
All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. ~ Bill Clinton
One thing is clear: liberalism as it was “classically” understood is no longer representative of the neo-liberals’ smorgasbord of positions (it cannot pass muster as a coherent worldview, fraught as it is with deep contradictions). Dr. Gayle Olson-Raymer outlines the fundamental differences between classical liberalism and the more modern social liberalism that began to exert itself in the Progressive Era:
Classical liberalism – emphasizes the belief that laissez faire capitalism based on little to no governmental interference in the economy will promote individual liberty. First articulated by John Locke (1632-1704) who described two fundamental ideas behind the idea of individual liberty:
- economic liberty – the right to own and use property; and
- intellectual liberty – the right to intellectual freedom of thought and conscience.
Social liberalism - emphasizes the belief that because unregulated laissez faire capitalism and the profit motive can cause inequality of wealth, a stronger central government is necessary to protect individual liberty from the perceived excesses of capitalism.
- John Maynard Keynes was one of the strongest proponents of social liberals.
- By the end of the 19th century, some liberals asserted that in order to be free, individuals needed access to food, shelter, and education and they also needed governmental protection against exploitation.
- Then, during the Great Depression, the public faith in laissez faire capitalism declined and many began to believe that unregulated markets could neither produce prosperity nor prevent poverty.
The New Deal represented an unprecedented expansion of the federal government, and FDR’s 1937 proposal of the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill in order to pack the Supreme Court with justices who would be more amenable to his unconstitutional legislation was the first foray into judicial activism that became standard practice after Brown v. Board of Education (1954). It was with the Great Society programs of 1964-65, however, that social liberalism truly began to mutate into the hideous monstrosity we know today.
The staunch criticisms of out-sourcing, globalism, foreign interventionism, the International Monetary Fund, the Federal Reserve, unwarranted state use of force, environmentalism, and of course, restrictions on free speech are all absent on the modern Left, and are now found exclusively on the Right. Hell, even restricting illegal immigration and enforcing the rule of law, once a major calling card of President Clinton, have become the sole territory of the Right. Here is Bill Clinton in his 1995 State of the Union address, sounding downright Trumpian:
All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens…we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.
The modern Left is generally defined by its extremely pronounced totalitarian tendencies and its desire to create paradisal conditions.
In fact, the Left believes anything short of the entire planet having unfettered access not jusAll Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.t to the United States but to all of the privileges—and none of the responsibilities—of citizenship is Nazism incarnate. Of course, the country itself is already Nazism incarnate under Fuhrer Trump according to the Facebook commentariat parroting the commissars on CNN and in the classroom, so why we would morally allow ourselves to condone the Noble Savages’ presence in a country where they could be separated from their children, thrown in cages, and carted off to concentration camps or gunned down by rogue police is unexplained. That said, as Tobias Langdon illuminates:
For an ideology, conforming to reality can actually be a disadvantage. The paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan has been right again and again about the errors of American domestic and foreign policy. To neo-conservatives and others who have been wrong again and again, this has merely confirmed Buchanan’s wickedness and cemented his exclusion from power…Indeed, lies and fantasies can be a much more powerful fuel than truth and realism. The modern West has become a Pseudotopia, or Land of Lies, because false ideologies have defeated truthful ones. For example, governments across the West are no longer realistic about human differences. Instead, they deny these differences and insist that all human groups have equal potential. Why, then, do some groups fail to realize their potential? It can only be because they are prevented from realizing it. Racism, sexism and Islamophobia are at work, stifling potential, preventing equality. These hateful prejudices must be hunted down and stamped out.
Liberals used to have a healthy distrust of an over-weaning government, but this appears to have gone by the wayside. Now they turn to it to solve all of their problems. Even in rebellion, they are unquestioningly tethered to the state apparatus. In fact, the modern Left is generally defined by its extremely pronounced totalitarian tendencies and its desire to create paradisal conditions here on earth with the government as their utopian vehicle. Returning to Langdon:
We can see the same contradictions in modern leftism. Anti-racists, feminists and LGBTQIA-rights activists claim that they only want equality and justice. But what they’re really after is power and privilege. They want to be “more equal than others.”…[When critics such as Susan] Sontag indict “the white race” as uniquely evil, uniquely culpable, and uniquely pernicious, in effect, she’s promulgating a blood libel that makes nonsense of leftist claims about human equality. The emotional fuel of anti-racism is hatred of Whites and the true aim of anti-racism is not equality but revenge.
Indeed, this blood libel is supposedly the justification for the Holocaust, which makes it, at minimum and accepting the narrative at face value, hypocritical of Sontag and the other Jewish critics Langdon lists in his article “Destroy the Goy” to be essentially advancing the exact same rhetoric that led to the Holocaust. What we are witnessing is not the universality of liberalism, but of an in-group’s intense hostility toward an out-group, in this case an out-group whose nations in which most of the Jews outside of Israel have made their domicile. Yet it is the conservators who are tarred as being “haters” and “xenophobes” and whatever other invective can be levelled at them in order to invalidate their positions and beliefs.
A nation is born a stoic and dies an epicurean
A trio of independently-conducted studies all confirmed that conservatism is not the sole province of prejudice the Left-wing media-entertainment complex and the liberal cultural zeitgeist love to smugly congratulate themselves that they’re above; John Chambers at St. Louis University, Jarret Crawford at The College of New Jersey, and Mark J. Brandt at Tillburg University with Christine Reyna and Geoffery Wetherell at DePaul University all found comparable levels of in-group/out-group prejudice among both conservatives and liberals. This might seem obvious—and it should—but much of the behavior of the “inclusive” Left is anything but, comprising of targeted vitriol and abuse of the “bigoted” Right in a stunning lack of self-awareness, with the extreme elements of the Left often resorting to violence, clearly unaware (or in another irony, uncaring) that their rhetoric of tolerance is only window-dressing for ruthless totalitarianism. The key divider is that most conservatives base their in-group on more traditional and logical parameters such as the family and the nation-state, whereas the Left often define themselves in opposition to something or someone. It makes the Left and its present “Coalition of the Fringes” inherently unstable, and thus extremely dangerous, especially as they’ve now largely abandoned the commitment to libertas that once defined their movement.
To see how deep the divide in the contemporary West has become, read or watch some of the attempts by academia and the media to “understand” conservatives and the white working class, which beyond appearing National Geographic-esque as one group studies another utterly foreign to them are invariably patronizing, and reek of the cultural imperialism and chauvinism the Left projects on the Right. They have grown complacent in the belief of the inevitability of the victory of their Vegan Reich, which shall reign for a thousand years and more. The conditions that allowed for their ideology to take root were not the product of judicial over-reach, open borders, and state-enforced sex changes and homosexuality, however. The dominance of liberalism in the last seventy-plus years in the West has much to do with the psychological phenomenon confirmed by Yale psychologists last year but one that has been well-documented since ancient times—the sense (or illusion) of safety and security heightens individuals’ amenability to more liberal social views, or, put another way by Will Durant, “A nation is born a stoic and dies an epicurean.”