With 2012 just around the corner, Liberals and so called “progressives” are proposing that their political philosophy is the correct path for us to walk. They rail against any ideological tie to socialism and the hue and cry reaches a crescendo when the parallels are drawn to their own socialistic leanings and current Administration policy. While some seek to define “conservatism” strictly along academic lines to equate modern conservatism with fascism, they refuse the same application of exactness to their own positions, claiming that unless each and every aspect of that definition is met, the nomenclature cannot accurately be applied.
In truth, modern conservatism has turned away from the negative aspects of historical conservatism and can more accurately be defined as “classical liberalism”. This is a very important distinction as the classifications of the opposing movements; conservatism and liberalism have been reversed in American politics in the post WW II era. Conservatives have become known as supporters of the free market, individual rights, respect for the rule of law and a right of self determination – these being core values of our Constitution. Liberals have become known for collectivist/socialist policies, support for the welfare state, control through economic planning and amorphous concepts such as “social justice” and “economic equality”. While American Conservatives have changed and adapted, American Liberals have maintained an unbroken tie to the core principles of the progressive, socialist and communist movements based on the theories of Marx, Lenin and Hegel.
Liberals deny their pedigree as socialists and redistributionists; however, this is the very nature of their ideology. While they argue that conservatism is heartless and ignores the plight of the weak and poor. I would argue just the opposite. Liberals do not seek to alleviate a burden; they merely seek to spread it to the entire of society for their brand of “progress” to succeed. The focus is not on eliminating the hazard, merely assuring that it is shared “equally” by all. This, of course, presumes that every citizen will bear this burden freely as an element of their collective duty and all will accept the “dictat” of an arbitrary authority as a necessary consequence.
For Liberalism to be successful every citizen must be conformant in their views, desires and ambitions (which causes one to wonder about their true commitment to diversity); we know this to be false -it is contrary to American history and the tradition of individualism and self-determination. In this, we see the primary illogical construct of Liberalism; we are not all the same and cannot be made so by force of will or law. As we are a nation of free individuals, to prosecute their programs they must by necessity create an inequality by attempting to convince not all, but only a narrow majority that their policies will benefit them and then enrolling the minority by the coercive power of authority. As evidence, I present the mandates for the purchase of health insurance regardless of choice or need and mandatory payments into Social Security. In order to create equality, they must necessarily first create and maintain inequality, a logical inconsistency.
A second fallacy is that there can be a “classless” society; that there can be “social justice” and “economic equality” under a Liberal construct. It must be understood that the Liberal definitions of the terms “justice” and “equality” are to be created by some arbitrary standard developed by a government entity, not the people. Lenin is credited with the question of “Who/Whom”, as in who plans whom, who directs and dominates whom, who assigns to other people their station in life, and who is to have his due allotted by others? These become necessarily the central issues to be decided solely by a supreme power. In this society, position within the authority becomes the measure of status rather than income, therefore class and inequality remains, only their basis changes.
Progressivism, socialism and Marxism are all antithetical by nature. The very things that Liberals and Progressives claim to favor – freedom, individual rights, and respect for the rule of law – must be abrogated in order to install their version of a “fair and equal” society; they must use the authoritarian powers of coercion to create the very conditions they promise to alleviate. It is very curious that “liberal”, a term used to describe freedom; generosity and broad mindedness – today means just the opposite in application. Rather than place trust in the individual and the free market, Liberalism presupposes a central authority that will create “fairness” in the most arbitrary way, in accordance with political rules, rules not decided upon by the people but by some faceless governmental entity. There is nothing fair, equal, free or inherently American about this concept.
Liberalism and Progressivism are nothing less than repackaged socialism, collectivism and Marxism implemented by degree. Once the American brand of Liberalism gains a foothold, it is no different than getting caught in the rain, it matters little whether it is a brief shower or a thunderstorm – the question is not if one will get wet – it is only to what degree.