Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think"

*PING* for the great post.

...Mr. Sayet IS correct regarding his observations of Modern Liberals in America.

I'm quite sure you may have gotten a whiff of the rather smelly controversy emanating from The Peoples' Republic Of Berkley (CA), in which the City Council wrote a letter to the U.S. Marine Corps requesting they shut down the recruitment center on Shadduck Avenue.

That is but one of many of examples of pure, unadulterated hatred and stupidity that comes from the Left, especially when a U.S. city council grants an odious group of morons like Code Pink a permanent parking space of protest (which of course is their First Amendment right, given in the shed blood of the very Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Coast Guardsmen they loathe), while shunning those brave men and women risking their lives on a daily basis, not just in Iraq but practically all over the entire planet!

...Oh, but they're always quick to say, 'We Support The Troops.'

Yeah, right.

Mr. Sayet does bring up some interesting points, though he misses one of the simplest liberal gambits: the "victim/oppressor" dichotomy. If everyone is either victim or oppressor, and nobody wants to be thought of as an oppressor, that would compel people to want to be victims.

I think Mr. Sayet misses the fundamental key to liberalism, though, which I call "Liberal Mind Fog". It allows people to see a world that doesn't exist--a world in which liberal nihilism begets paradise. While Mr. Sayet is correct in noting that liberals do, in a very real sense, hate America, in their own minds they love America but just hate various factors that pollute and corrupt it. It never dawns on them that the factors they see as "polluting and corrupting" are, in fact, the essence of what makes this country what it is.

"It never dawns on them that the factors they see as "polluting and corrupting" are, in fact, the essence of what makes this country what it is."

Spot on correct!

It's like I often write about these illiberals and the Constitution:

True historical World Conservativism (think unabashed monarchist or totalitarian systems) enjoin: potent government; centralized governance; and arbitrary authority for governance.

True historical Worlds Liberals, which is to say Political Liberals like the Founding Fathers, will tend to enjoin: limited government; decentralized governance; and constitutional authority for governance.

But the Founding Fathers went two steps further: instead of mere "constitutional authority for governance" they adopted "enumerated authority for governance" which is a stricter standard; and they retained, and even reinforced, English Common Laws as the basis for our laws and liberty.

This last is an important truth to disprove that they were in no way "Radicals" as were the authors of the French Revolution who instead enjoined what might be called "Administrative Laws" where all laws and privileges are ONLY sourced in the political process.

Now, I know that we will hear people decry the "arbitrary nature" of common laws (especially when they run counter to some life style choice); but, please consider that Administrative Law is an EXPRESSLY ARBITRARY form of and basis for Laws and so the protest is a bit like a pot calling the good china black.

Truth be told, the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid even the taint of arbitrary governance or basis for laws and that is why they were even more Politically Liberal than almost anyone else while still NOT being radicals.

BUT these American "Liberals" enjoin all of these in spades: potent government; centralized governance; arbitrary authority for governance; AND arbitrary authority for Laws.

They are really in the larger world sense, Political Conservatives who are only separated from the worst regimes by their devotion to "civil rights" — which are only sourced in the political process and are not anything like "inalienable rights" even though they may be based on them (like the French The Rights of Man was).

So here is the rub: these Progressives are really Regressives hauling us back from the genius of our Founding and into the morass of human illiberalism.

They are fundamentally LAWLESS. While claiming to love the Constitution they would really be loathed to be governed by it for it would not allow them to do what they want to do. Further, their LAWLESSNESS is compounded since they won't even bother to properly amend the Constitution to avoid arbitrariness.

They claim to love the Constitution but seek to govern in accordance to what they can get away with. In truth they don't even LIKE the Constitution because it embodies true Political Liberalism without radicalism and they are true Political Conservatives and Social Radicals.

They are fundamentally LAWLESS.

The "liberal" leaders who exploit "Liberal Mind Fog" among their subjects as a means of expanding their power need to be recognized for what they are: authoritarian anarchists (or perhaps totalitarian anarchists). Although I'm not the first to use such phraseology (it exists on Google) it's a concept I don't think is sufficiently widely recognized.

The leaders want all power unto themselves, but they have no concern about whether the power they seek has any legitimate basis beyond their ability to get it. Thus, they are simultaneously totalitarians and anarchists.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.