Connect with us

Democrats

The Left is fracturing, so please stop conflating Socialists and Liberals as being one and the same.

Published

on

Liberals have far more in common with Conservatives than they realize, it is time to welcome them to the freedom side of the political spectrum.

The classic liberal used to be the man who believed the individual was, and should be forever, the master of his destiny. That is now the conservative position. The liberal used to believe in freedom under law. He now takes the ancient feudal position that power is everything. He believes in a stronger and stronger central government, in the philosophy that control is better than freedom. The conservative now quotes Thomas Paine, a long-time refuge of the liberals: “Government is a necessary evil; let us have as little of it as possible.” Ronald Reagan

YouTube has a very curious series of videos that feature people who are leaving the Left. It should be noted that the nations’ left has always been deceptive in the false front it portrays to the general public. Most political movements have internal squabbles over policy and priorities and the political Right is no exception. For example, we don’t all agree on distinguishing Leftists or ‘progressives’ from Liberals… ahem.

The Left is splintering

But the Left is quite different in this respect. While it endeavours to display an external appearance of unity it’s many factions are at odds with each other. Dennis Prager has made the point a number of times, and unfortunately has yet to produce a ‘PragerU’ video on the subject…. Hint..Hint..

Many recent articles have highlighted the fact of the nation’s Left is fracturing and splitting apart:

The Nation: What Killed the Democratic Party?
The New Yorker: The Democratic Civil War Is Getting Nasty, Even if No One Is Paying Attention.
The New York Times Magazine: A Post-Obama Democratic Party in Search of Itself
The Hill: To win in 2018, Democrats must resist moving further left.
The Washington Post: The Democrats’ use of the race card does real harm

On a basic level the difference between Right and Left is one of an Individual versus collectivist philosophy. Granting that human nature is a very complicated subject and there are exceptions and contradictions to this rule, this does work as a ‘Litmus test’ in distinguishing both sides of the political spectrum. It also helps explain why those who consider themselves to be Liberal throw their lot in with the Left.

It is high time that those who like to think of themselves as Liberal realize the stark differences between them and those who have the collectivist philosophy of the Left. Definitionally speaking, these two types of people are quite different from each other [Don’t even get me started on the virtually meaningless term ‘Progressive’].

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term Left in part as follows:

Relating to a person or group favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views.
left periodicals such as Marxism Today(often the Left) [treated as singular or plural] A group or party favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views.
Origin Old English lyft, left ‘weak’ (the left-hand side being regarded as the weaker side of the body), of West Germanic origin.[Our emphasis]

The definition does mention the terms ‘radical’ and ‘reforming’ but these fail to refer to any political philosophy and refer back to other words, etc. Thus it should be clear that the Left is synonymous with Socialism and the reason for the use of the term Socialist-Left. One could say that is repetitive and redundant, but it is a good reminder of the Left’s base ideology.

The Left’s dirty secret

It should also be clear that the dirty little secret of the Socialist-Left is that their collectivist philosophy requires coercion in order to function. One cannot take “From each according to his abilities” without the threat of force against those with better abilities. This is hardly amenable to those who value individual rights and freedoms, in other words – Liberals.

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term Liberal in part as follows:

Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas:
Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
(In a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform:
person of liberal views
Origin
Middle English: via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man)’. The original sense was ‘suitable for a free man’, hence ‘suitable for a gentleman’ (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts. Another early sense ‘generous’ (compare with sense 4 of the adjective) gave rise to an obsolete meaning ‘free from restraint’, leading to sense 1 of the adjective (late 18th century).
[Our emphasis]

“Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms”
“favouring individual liberty, free trade”

Doesn’t part of that sound very much like the definition of a Conservative? Yes, there are other parts that could be at odds with Conservatives e.g.“moderate political and social reform” which could mean just about anything. But consider the commonalities before dismissing those who could be potential allies.

Why do Leftists and Liberals coexist?

So what explains the grouping of Leftists and Liberals together given their stark definitional divide?

This could at least be partially explained by cultural and educational indoctrination that most children and young adults are inundated with on a daily basis. It could also be explained by collectivist thinking that obscures the underlying the application of force required for it’s implementation.

On a very superficial level it’s easy to go along with Leftist attempts at making everyone ‘equal’ while being generous with other people’s money. The Socialist-Left’s visions of Utopia are very seductive with everyone being ‘equal’, living ‘Harmony’ with free healthcare, housing and other wonders all paid for by someone else.

As previously stated, the distribution of all that wondrous largess comes at a high cost – that of society having to extract the hard earned property of some to buy the votes of many. The immoral requirement of stealing other people’s money is rationalized by some because it was stolen or they have too much or something.

The problem soon becomes one of disincentivised behaviour and they quickly run out of other people’s money. Consequently, the flowery promises cannot be fulfilled and the heavy hand of society has to come down hard on those who become restless with a police state. It’s at that point the powers that be have become entrenched and keep a death grip on power as the whole system falls apart. It’s at this auspicious point that Leftist will suddenly discover that it wasn’t really socialism after all.

For reference, take a look at the current situation in Venezuela with it’s people starving enough to be eating garbage and horrible developments that cannot even be mentioned.

This is why Liberals should part company from the Left. While they may agree with the Utopian BS spouted by their Leftist comrades, they should know that history has repeatedly shown this is but a fantasy that can never be realized. That soon enough events will transpire that are completely at odds with the word they use to describe themselves. They need to understand these fundamental realities and come over to the side that is far more amenable with what they believe and want for their posterity – the Right side of the political spectrum.

We may not agree 100 % on every aspect of life in a free-society, but at least they can be honest disagreements. Let the Socialists, Progressives and Leftist pursue their chimera on their own as a small political minority, the rest of us can ‘move-on’ from the false promise of socialism and live our lives with the vestiges of economic liberty.

Advertisement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

Bongino: Democrats have nowhere to go on the shutdown

Published

on

Bongino Democrats have nowhere to go on the shutdown

The old narrative from Democrats and leftist media was that President Trump was unwilling to negotiate. Senator Chuck Schumer often said the President had a “temper tantrum” every time they’d try to work things out.

This was untrue, of course, but facts weren’t enough to change the narrative, so the President went on national television to lay out his plan on how they can make a deal to open up the government.

Nope. It wasn’t good enough because it still had the “W” word in it. So, now the narrative has switched from “he won’t deal” to “there’s nothing new in the deal.” This is also false.

Dan Bongino went on Fox & Friends this morning to point out where the situation stands. Democrats have backed themselves into a corner, according to Bongino, and the only way out is to address the President’s offer. But they won’t. They’re Democrats.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Kamala Harris makes 2020 run official

Published

on

Kamala Harris makes 2020 run official

Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) has announced she will be running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. She joines a slew of Democrats who have already announced with plenty more expected to join the race soon.

She joins Julian Castro, John Delaney, Richard Ojeda, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Elizabeth Warren as major candidates who have declared or stated their intention of declaring soon. Then, there are 142 other people who have filed with the FEC to run for the Democratic nomination.

Add another 20 or so who have expressed interest publicly to run and they’re going to have to trade in the clown car for a clown bus.

My Take

Nobody is surprised by this. The Senator used the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings as a platform to promote herself and her future campaign, which she almost certainly intended at that point. Now, it’s official.

She has a good chance despite national polls showing her lower than Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and a handful of other better-known Democrats. California has an early primary next year, meaning she has a chance of getting a huge boost in delegates from her home state if she can remain viable at that point.

Another thing to watch is President Obama. He’s spoken more kindly of Harris than just about any other potential candidate other than Biden. If Joe doesn’t run, the former President might throw his clout in her direction.

Here’s how it’s playing out on her Twitter Moment:


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

2020 hopefuls lurching leftward to appeal to radical progressive base

Published

on

2020 hopefuls lurching leftward to appeal to radical progressive base

The great primary evolution is already starting. We saw it in 2016 as every Republican candidate tried to “evolve” their views to cater to the conservative base. No evolution was more striking than candidate Trump’s, who went from supporting gun bans and partial birth abortion as a younger man to being one of the most conservative candidates during the primaries.

We’re seeing it now with the Democratic candidates and potential candidates as they try to plant their ideological flags as far to the left as possible. Former Trump pollster John Mclaughlin gave his opinion on the leftward lurch of the field, focusing on Elizabeth Warren, Cory “Spartacus” Booker, and Kamala Harris. Each has attempted to paint themselves as the radical progressive the primary-voting base desires. All of them were much more moderate in the past. Warren was even a Republican in the 1990s.

The thing that makes this trend most disturbing is that the “far left” of the past is nothing compared to the radical progressivism of today’s Democratic base. By the time the primaries really heat up, most if not all will be full-blown socialists.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report