The Objections of the Left

What happens when a Leftist hits middle age?

How does he respond when his opinions and beliefs come under scrutiny?

In chronicling any notion, whether it was the divine rights of kings, slavery, communism, or the Viet Nam war, the critical examination of a notion generates a conservative backlash.

A conservative backlash?

Yes. No one likes to have their beliefs examined. Whenever a man’s beliefs are questioned, his first response is going to be “you’re wrong”. Many of us have been trained to have and hold beliefs that won’t stand the scrutiny of critical evaluation. There is a certain subset of these beliefs that we call religion, and out of respect, the private practises of religious beliefs are outside the role of politics or government. Unless those private religious beliefs intrude upon the Commons.

No, that’s not right.

The only limitation we have on religious belief is that we don’t use the Commons to exclude those religious beliefs we disagree with. To do so would be to establish a state, or government preferred or approved, religion. As I recall, that establishment is prohibited by our Constitution.

Unfortunately, those who have religious beliefs that lie under the mantle of Established Religion have found that having clearly defined identification as a religion, has meant that old-style religious organizations have been removed from the Commons, where New Age religious beliefs have been allowed to bloom and grow. Or, established.

If you’re Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist…well, you’re a “religion”. If you believe that corporations are bad, capitalism is for the greedy, and being responsible for your own fate is the cause of your own victimhood, or, that we have to “respect the Earth”, then you’re Lefty. And Lefties don’t have a “religion”.

Wrong! How many secularists does it take to screw in a light bulb? Or dance on the head of a pin?

I’ve had too many conversations with Leftists not to know that they believe that simply removing the word “God” leaves them without religion. But I look at the beliefs of Leftists, and am constantly amazed at how easily they fall into the patterns of dogma, without the benefit of a qualified clergy.

Do Leftists have religious beliefs? I think it is the only way to understand them.

A brief digression.

It was after the fall of the Soviet Union that I made my first visit to Russia. As a Russian Studies student I never believed that I would ever take a step on Red Square. It was with a combination of exhilaration and disbelief that I took my first steps on those yellow bricks. On one side? Purportedly the world’s largest department store. On the other? The Kremlin.

Imagine my naïve innocence as I took my first step into Lenin’s Tomb. What can you expect? And then, there he was. The Dead Lenin. (He is dead, by the way.) And in the moment when I first face Lenin, guarded on each side by men with machine guns, I hear a woman explaining to her grandson, that “there lies Lenin, the Father of the Soviet Union.”

Religion in the USSR? You betcha. Passed on from mother, grandmother, to son, grandson.

Do you need the word “god” to have a religion?

Leftists will tell you, “yes”. Why?

Because they have beliefs that can only be described as religious beliefs and they don’t mention God. They seek to push out beliefs they don’t believe in from the Commons, without the mention of God. So too, with their beliefs that only uses of the Commons that they approve are good, without the mention of God.

Take housing.

It’s okay if the government builds housing. It’s wrong if private developers build housing.

Take transportation.

It’s okay if the government builds light-rail. It’s wrong if you want to drive your own car.

Take schools.

It’s okay to teach your children to be members of the world. It’s wrong to teach your children to be Americans.

The conservative Lefty. Opposing those who disagree with them.

End of digression.

Or, there’s the sense of Conservatism in the sense that Edmund Burke talked about conservatism.

Take a moment and read the first paragraph of Burke's Thoughts on the Present Discontents and Speeches (Cassell & Company, Limited: London, Paris, New York & Melbourne. 1886)

"It is an undertaking of some degree of delicacy to examine into the cause of public disorders. If a man happens not to succeed in such an inquiry, he will be thought weak and visionary; if he touches the true grievance, there is a danger that he may come near to persons of weight and consequence, who will rather be exasperated at the discovery of their errors than thankful for the occasion of correcting them. If he should be obliged to blame the favourites of the people, he will be considered as the tool of power; if he censures those in power, he will be looked on as an instrument of faction. But in all exertions of duty something is to be hazarded. In cases of tumult and disorder, our law has invested every man, in some sort, with the authority of a magistrate. When the affairs of the nation are distracted, private people are, by the spirit of that law, justified in stepping a little out of their ordinary sphere. They enjoy a privilege of somewhat more dignity and effect than that of idle lamentation over the calamities of their country. They may look into them narrowly; they may reason upon them liberally; and if they should be so fortunate as to discover the true source of the mischief, and to suggest any probable method of removing it, though they may displease the rulers for the day, they are certainly of service to the cause of Government. Government is deeply interested in everything which, even through the medium of some temporary uneasiness, may tend finally to compose the minds of the subjects, and to conciliate their affections. I have nothing to do here with the abstract value of the voice of the people. But as long as reputation, the most precious possession of every individual, and as long as opinion, the great support of the State, depend entirely upon that voice, it can never be considered as a thing of little consequence either to individuals or to Government. Nations are not primarily ruled by laws; less by violence. Whatever original energy may be supposed either in force or regulation, the operation of both is, in truth, merely instrumental. Nations are governed by the same methods, and on the same principles, by which an individual without authority is often able to govern those who are his equals or his superiors, by a knowledge of their temper, and by a judicious management of it; I mean, when public affairs are steadily and quietly conducted: not when Government is nothing but a continued scuffle between the magistrate and the multitude, in which sometimes the one and sometimes the other is uppermost--in which they alternately yield and prevail, in a series of contemptible victories and scandalous submissions. The temper of the people amongst whom he presides ought therefore to be the first study of a statesman. And the knowledge of this temper it is by no means impossible for him to attain, if he has not an interest in being ignorant of what it is his duty to learn."

It's hard to discern from a reading of Burke why his name has been attached--as it is--with Conservatives and Conservatism, since his words and acts were opposed to tyranny. There are times when I can listen to Janeane Garofalo and believe there is nothing between her reading of truth, Edmund Burke’s and mine. And then she kicks in the Lefty stuff, and I am left sitting there, disappointed. (As I’m sure Ben Stiller has been.) It is true, that Catholic chicks are hard to understand. But a reading of Burke will help us understand today the reaction of the Left to criticism of its held beliefs.

Burke was held by his political opponents as Liberal, but, defending the status quo simply because of its status, as a reactionairy to the revolutionairy. A charge, in general, that my reading of Burke would tend to support. Viewing the world in which he lived, the events of 1789 were held in low-esteem by the conservative Burke. To Burke, the French Revolution was a mistake on many levels, but most importantly, he held in low estimation the forms and actions of French revolutionairies as simply agents of a new tyranny, that held less promise for equity for the average citizen of France that that promised by the Citizen of France. That one form of tyranny did not promise--nor could it promise—greater or more equable conditions for the general populace than from the tyranny it had replaced.

This disposition of Burke's, the Liberal Burke, to condemn tyranny in all its forms, coupled with his derision of the French Revolution, has led to his distinction as a sort of Father of Conservatism. In fact, when I refer to myself as a conservative, it is this brand of conservatism that serves to form the starting point from which I assess the promises of any current, popular political trend. While there may be particular statements or beliefs of Burke that merit criticism, the overall tendency to view the world as a place where the basic nature of man is as a rational man, and that basic nature makes him responsible for his rational beliefs. And subject to criticism--indeed, ridicule--when those beliefs can be shown to be irrational, delusional, unjust or simply wrong.

Again, when I think of myself as a Classic Liberal, it is again the actual man represented by the works and actions of Burke, just as much as I recall the writings of Rousseau, the Confessions in particular. That is to say, it is Burke's opposition to tyranny, whatever its form or claim to legitimacy that creates the sobriquet of Liberal, as attached to his works, actions and writings. So, I must confess that my conservatism has been jaded by the liberal tendencies both of Burke and Rousseau. But I'm comfortable knowing that there are inconsistencies in my beliefs; that tend to defy the Hegelian process altogether.

I think it is this deliberate assumption on my part, that I am bound to be victim of my own contradictory beliefs or opinions that makes me more ably receptive to the idea that I may, in my beliefs or opinions, be wrong. You can, in me, easily evoke a reflective response by invoking the words, "you're wrong." But I will then rely upon you to at least attempt to provide an argument that would support that view. Mere contradiction is not argument. (Nor are the introductions of logical fallacies a form of formal argument that you can expect me to respect.) Simply having a belief or opinion that contradicts my own does nothing more than highlight that either you or I are wrong. It is my earnest desire to be proven wrong when I am wrong. But are you willing to be proven wrong, when you are wrong?

So it is with the conservative backlash of the Left.

Their anger towards anyone who criticises their beliefs.

First; their statements that if you believe contrary to their beliefs, you will be harmed. Not content to say they want to take from the productive members of society the fruits of their labour, and distribute them to those they deem are fit, couching the intent of the Leftist is introduced by pointing out all the various forms of harm that are inflicted upon an unthinking and disadvantaged underclass. The Left is about victims. Whether its the man who is forced (is forced!) to take a minimum-wage job, to the woman who spends her money on booze, smokes and the Oregon Lottery being unable to provide her children with Health Insurance, we cannot criticise either them, or the public school system that generated these people, because they are victims. And victims are harmed. Leftists want to end the victimhood and protect you from harm!

So what?

You can and must choose every day the things that may harm you, even if you don't believe that you may be harmed. If, every time you moved toward your driveway people appeared with signs warning you that by driving your car you, your children or worse, some stranger may or will be killed, perhaps you'd rethink your choice to drive that day. There's a reason why Shakespeare used the device of the three witches to warn the hero of the Scottish Play. And there's a reason why Lefties adopt the witches as their own. (I prefer Laocoön, myself, but who listens to me?)

Sadly, truth is, most of what we perform today has risks. Fall headfirst through your picture window, head lops off, you're dead. Fall down the front steps, break your neck, you're dead. And don't get me started on showers!

So, showing a lack of agreement with the Lefty Powers That Be (not God) will at first draw you the admonition that something or someone will be harmed as the result of your apostasy. And pointing out that you disagree with (or declaim) the Witches will only result in the pronouncement that even more harsh action is necessary.

Poor Scottish King!

Secondly, the name calling. Who wants to be called a name? Or, worse yet, have your name and reputation impugned? Call me a Republican? (Well, yeah!) But children in our public schools are taught that Republicans are bad, the greedy tools of evil corporations. (Seriously. And even in English classes. Makes you wonder why, huh? In fact, it is so bad at Astoria High School that on their website they proclaim that your student will become one of those " citizens of the earth, embracing responsibility for self, family, community, and democracy.") All Hail, Marx and Lenin! (You thought they just "forgot" the Pledge of Allegiance at last year's graduation ceremony?)

But, if Republican isn't enough of a name, there are others. Liar is a favourite. Although I've found that Leftists who disagree with me quickly accelerate through names...quickly determining that the dialogue is advanced the more quickly as more extreme terms of derision are put into use. But the favored method in my little neck of the woods is to float a rumour about a person, then report on the rumour.

"County Commissioner Target of Investigation".

Using headline news coverage, the broadest types of assertions can be written, only to find out later that the investigation was nothing more than the finding that there was nothing there to investigate. But the name calling is there, in place.

Finally, indignity. Why bother to talk, at all? This is the Prufrock Moment, as I like to think it. If there is going to be a lack of dialogue, "why bother to speak to him...he's a Republican", I think about rolling up my trouser legs and heading for the seashore. Why, indeed? Much like a victim of cancer, a Leftist facing reality goes through stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining and depression. And stops there.

Or, starts over.

The conservative backlash is understandable. What was the story of Thomas Becket? Why was President Davis sure that the South was on the right side of God's plan, when President Lincoln was not? Why did Stalin fight against the socialist movement of Hitler?

Did Henry II win? And how would you respond if asked, "Where is the traitor?"

So, what happens when a Leftist hits middle age?

My advice is to be unafraid of the backlash of the middle-aged Leftist. Just as "My Country, Right or Wrong" showed the lack of education and ability to defend us against those who sought to end the Viet Nam war, through a weakness in articulation, the modern day reactionary, too, is showing a weakness in argument.
The papers today blame all bad things on Republicans, little noting that Lyndon Baines Johnson and Secretary McNamara were the type of leaders, or something, for the Democrat Party at the time.

Perhaps it is too much to ask of a Democrat to defend his country while attempting to destroy it at the same time.

The growing level of reaction is evident in an increasing level of inarticulation.

What passes for debate, even at the highest levels?

Horrors! Destruction! Change is bad! Corporations! Drilling! We can't do that, it's not sustainable! Greed! Victimhood! Save the Planet! Save the Earth! We must be "citizens of the earth, embracing responsibility for self, family, community, and democracy."

How bad is it? Do yourself a favour. Find the website for Astoria High School. At the top of the page you’ll find these words, “"citizens of the earth, embracing responsibility for self, family, community, and democracy." And ask yourself, “isn’t it time we take the Commons back?” It’s not that I can’t defend myself against the imprecations of the Left, but upon whom do I rely to defend our children? (And no, I don’t believe that the lack of the Pledge of Allegiance at last year’s Graduation Ceremony was an oversight.)

I am an American. I have a responsibility for my self and for my family. You have your responsibilities and these are not mine. They are yours. You may tell me I am responsible for you, but I am not. My choices are mine, as are the outcomes of those choices. You make your bed and you must lie in it. Where has the Leftist bent lead us? In this county and in this state, to a place where “Government is nothing but a continued scuffle between the magistrate and the multitude, in which sometimes the one and sometimes the other is uppermost--in which they alternately yield and prevail, in a series of contemptible victories and scandalous submissions.” (ibid.)

Whether it is the State or County, the impulse of the Leftist is to tell us what we may or may not do. I hear voices on the Left cry out for the “right kind of development”. As if only, by looking through the lens of the Left, can we be guided to the “right kind of future.”

I have no idea what our future will bring. I can imagine what the Leftist mind-set would have meant in the 19th-century, as government task forces work with buggy and whip manufacturers, providing subsidies for the development of new applications for the buggy and whip. Leftists point out the benefits to mankind from government spending on the space program. Because of government spending, we have Velcro and Teflon.

What Leftists tend to forget is that NASA’s purpose wasn’t the discovery of Velcro and Teflon. It was to enter space. Velcro and Teflon were unintended consequences of the space program. And while those first pioneers were working on getting man to escape the Earth, little did you or I ever think, yet glimpse, the proliferation of communication satellites that would be bring us weather, telephone, television and global positioning devices that fit in the palm of our hands.

It is the decision of a man, or group of men, free from governmental mandate, free from the stultifying vision of central planning, that has created the most productive nation on the Earth. The industrial capacity of this nation is greater than it has ever been—even though you won’t hear this from the Leftists. After all, industrial society is not “sustainable”. Yet, the steel industry increased its output, from 2006 to 2007 by 4.7 billion dollars. (U.S. Census Bureau, MA331B(o7)). Exports of steel increased by 17.6 percent from 2007. “Foreign demand for American steel also has contributed to the high rate of production. According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, exports for "iron and steel products, other" are $1.1 billion year-to-date, a 17.6 percent increase from the 2007 period…when you go and check the actual situation and you find a mixed picture with a lot of weakness but a lot of good stories, you have to conclude the situation has not been so catastrophic as so many press reports wanted us to believe for quite some time." (“Fed’s Beige Book Reports”, Medill Reports, April 16, 2008.)

“In the week ending August 23, 2008, domestic raw steel production was 2,125,000 net tons while the capability utilization rate was 89.1 percent. Production was 2,075,000 tons in the week ending August 23, 2007, while the capability utilization then was 87.7 percent. The current week production represents a 2.4 percent increase from the same period in the previous year. Production for the week ending August 23, 2008 is up 2.0 percent from the previous week ending August 16, 2008 when production was 2,167,000 tons and the rate of capability utilization was 90.8 percent.” (American Iron and Steel Institute, This Week's Raw Steel Production)

Did government pick the Bessemer process? Nope. Then why do you want government to pick “our next, new energy source”? What makes government a better picker and chooser than the guys who run the energy companies? Or, more importantly, the guys who are starting up new energy companies? (For more on energy, make sure you visit Power and Control.

Leftists don’t want to lose control. Even though the evidence is, that they are ill-equipped to exercise that control. Whether it’s the Governor killing unfavourably viewed power generating plants in Oregon, or local Lefties killing energy transportation in Clatsop County, for the Leftist, control is everything.

So, don’t be surprised when the Left reacts. In its own conservative backlash. You know what the keywords are: sustainability, suitability, environmental damage, threats of destruction, corporate greed and the Vision. The sort of rhetoric that you would have heard in the 1960’s, “My country, love it or leave it!” “Ban the Bomb!” Bumper-sticker slogans in defense of an ill-conceived political agenda.

Examine the reaction of the Left. Anticipate it.

I am reminded of Lieutenant Weinberg’s criticism of co-counsel in A Few Good Men:

“‘I strenuously object?’

“Is that how it works? Hm?

"‘Objection.’

"‘Overruled.’

"‘Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object.’

“‘Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider.’"