Author Archives: Ron Lipsman

The Revolution the US is Experiencing – and What if it Succeeds

The word revolution usually connotes the overthrow of the government of a sovereign entity, and its replacement by a completely different governing structure. Purely a political phenomenon! Successful revolutions are almost always marked by violence, but peaceful political revolutions have been known to occur. Most commonly, political revolutions are accompanied by cultural and economic revolutions. That is, not only is the political system of the country overthrown and replaced, but so are the social/cultural and economic systems.

Such a thorough overhaul of the fundamental nature of a country occurred, for example, in the Communist Revolution in Russia in 1917, the Fascist Revolutions in Italy and Germany (in the 1920s and 1930s, resp.), the Sino/Communist Revolution in China in the 1940s, the French Revolution in 1789 and, of course, the American Revolution in 1775. Since 1775, the revolutions – successful and otherwise – in the world surely number in the thousands. Of course, there have also been numerous insurrections, rebellions, and “minor revolutions” across the globe – wherein the goals were perhaps less grandiose than a complete overthrow of a country’s basic systems – e.g., secessions or creations of autonomous zones. In fact, the question posed in the title refers to a full-blown revolution, not some minor adjustment to the basic political and/or cultural and/or economic features of these United States. The title boldly asserts that an attempted comprehensive revolution is underway in America. Let’s explain its nature and predict what will ensue if it succeeds.

It may be difficult to discern that a full-scale revolution is brewing in the United States of America. There are no guerilla bands pouring out of the mountains to attack towns or cities or government installations. Although, recent violence by armed revolutionaries against US courthouses may be a harbinger of things to come. There are no press briefings or published manifestos in which the revolutionaries explain why the current system is rotten and why their proposed new system will herald peace, prosperity and justice for the beleaguered citizenry of our afflicted country. Well, perhaps that is also not so. The utterances and proposals of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and, indeed, of virtually all of the radical left Democratic presidential candidates – as well as those of almost all Democratic Congress persons and Senators, and many radical Democratic city mayors – would seem to qualify.

There are no putsches or cleansings at our leading cultural institutions. We are still free to say, write or publish our opinions on cultural matters. Really? Can you say ‘cancel culture!’ In fact, here are some ideas and practices that have been mainstream American culture for generations: the American family is primarily one male father, one female mother, and their children; you can get ahead in life by going to school, studying hard, working hard, getting married, and developing products/ideas that others want to obtain/follow; America is a beacon of liberty that has saved the world at least twice from totalitarians; and despite its shortcomings (slavery, manifestations of racism and sexism, maltreatment of indigenous peoples), America has corrected much of those failings and is moving ever closer to a just society in which all are equal before the law. In fact, the expression of any of those ideas is now considered a violent aggression worthy of punishment. The people who react thus are revolutionaries.

And there are many of them. Virtually all the opinion molding organs of American society are in the hands of the revolutionaries: the entire educational establishment (from kindergarten to graduate school), the media, the law schools, the libraries, big corporation boards, the entertainment industry and the Democratic Party. Moreover, they are winning. The youth of America have been brainwashed for at least the last 50 years. The average youngster has no idea who John Marshall or Edmund Burke or Adam Smith were or what they said, or how their ideas shaped the political, economic and social systems of our country. But he or she can tell you with certainty that capitalist America has polluted the oceans, fouled the atmosphere, oppressed people of color all over the world, demeaned women and hoarded the wealth so that far too many people – both here and abroad – are in a state of penury. Alas, the cultural revolution these folks have engineered is essentially complete; now we are on the cusp of the completion of its political counterpart.

This eventuality represents the success of an idea that is generally attributed to Antonio Gramsci – that is, politics runs downstream from culture. The Progressive Movement – which goes back a hundred years to Woodrow Wilson (and actually further to Teddy Roosevelt and others in the 1890s) began this ongoing revolution with the express goal of destroying the classic American culture. They have succeeded. But the political revolution has not quite yet come to fruition. There have been times when it looked like it might: the Wilsonian 1910s; the 1930s under Roosevelt’s New Deal; the mid/late 1960s when riots ruled the land and we were catapulted into The Great Society. Now we are apparently in a fourth great upheaval. Will the radicals triumph politically this time?

So let’s consider why the progressive political revolution failed the past three times; and then let’s offer some powerful reasons why it might succeed this time. Indeed, why did the previous three revolutionary periods not usher in the fundamental political change the radical left envisioned (and still envisions)? In fact the original Progressive movement did bring about several revolutionary changes to the American body politic: creation of the federal income tax; direct election of Senators; female right to vote. And the industrial revolution was transforming America from an agrarian society into an industrialized one. But the fundamental character of the American people was strong, resilient and – for the moment – largely impervious to change. Namely, the American people, like their ancestors:

Were committed to republican government.
Held liberty (as opposed to equality) as its most cherished ideal.
Believed in the sanctity of God-given individual rights.
Also believed strongly in free enterprise.
Prized freedom – for themselves and others around the world.
Upheld the rule of law.
Believed in US “exceptionalism” – that is, unlike all the other nations, the US was an exceptional land with the moral authority and right to lead the peoples of the world in the fight for freedom, justice and opportunity.
Agreed that religion played a key role in developing the morality that allowed government by the people to succeed.
And subscribed to the political, cultural and ethical tenets of classic Western Civilization.

The political revolution that the Progressives foresaw replaced the remarkable list above by the following:

Desire for an authoritarian and powerful central government.
Held equality above liberty.
Committed to group rights.
Envisioned government control of the economy.
Foresaw universal world government over the nation states, with the US no more special or exceptional than any other nation.
Denied that religion had any public role to play in the nation’s development, and that it is up to the people to set the moral standards that guide the nation.
Believe justification for the law of the land comes not from religion or tradition or the tenets of any ancient civilization, but from the reasoning and natural proclivities of the people themselves.
Sees Western Civilization as corrupt, oppressive and racist; and the nation would better prosper if it accorded more respect to the cultures of indigenous people, peoples of color and immigrant groups.
Finally, considers the Founders’ Constitution to be outdated, to be replaced by one giving force to the ideas in the previous bullets.

Well in 1920, the American people weren’t having any of that. Nor were they in 1940. Albeit, by 1965, the resolve of the people was weakening. Now, let’s take the periods in order, acknowledging that both lists represent a mix of politics and culture. In 1920, the advent of the Harding-Coolidge Administration and the roaring twenties reflected the fact that the Progressive list was anathema to the American people.

A similar comment applies to the second upheaval in the 1930s. Indeed the country was in great distress and turmoil throughout the 1930s. But the radical political revolution was thwarted by retained conservative trends in the country. This is perhaps typified by Roosevelt’s failure to pack the Supreme Court. And once the crisis of the Second World War erupted, the country became completely unreceptive to any idea of fundamental political change.

Finally, the reasons that the third great upheaval (in the 1960s) failed to usher in the radical revolution are essentially similar. Certainly the death of JFK and the installation of the uber liberal Johnson Administration provided the opening. But the advent of the Vietnam War and the widespread revulsion at the radical riots and upheavals in American cities again put the kibosh on the completion of Gramsci’s political revolution.

Now all the previous observations reinforce the idea that: The preservation of the classic American culture rendered the Progressive political revolution impossible to implement during these times. However, I note that the decade of the 1960s marked the start of a period in which the Progressive cultural revolution made enormous strides. I leave to another venue a more complete discussion of that 50 year period 1965-2015, which saw a comprehensive and extensive cultural revolution in the United States. Indeed, the classic American culture was overthrown and it was replaced by a new radical culture.

So the prime reason, a la Gramsci, that the Progressive political revolution failed each time was that the cultural revolution was not yet complete – certainly not in 1915 or 1935, and also not yet in 1965 – albeit it was well on the way in the 1960s. Well today, in 2020, the cultural revolution is essentially complete. Here are its components;

First of all, Western Civilization is OUT. Roman/Greek/Hebrew history holds no special place for us. The culture of Western Europe is neither celebrated as “enlightened” nor relevant. It is marked by corruption, oppression, bigotry and colonialism. Columbus was a racist, unworthy to be considered a founder or discoverer of anything. Instead we look to the high achievements of indigenous people, people of color, minorities, and immigrants – anyone not tainted by the stain of white privilege.
Free enterprise has not turned out to be free or enterprising for most Americans. It concentrates wealth in the hands of white privileged segments of society; holding down the common folk in unsafe, poor paying, ephemeral jobs while a small coterie accumulates vast wealth – which it uses for nefarious purposes.
Individual rights are a scam to keep minorities oppressed. Group rights protect the average citizen much better.
Fair trade is not fair and not really trade. It sucks the wealth from poor people and enriches the white privileged.
Traditional religions reinforce the inequities described above. They represent biased, ignorant and unsympathetic viewpoints.
US exceptionalism is nonsense. We are no different than the peoples of any other country. Once recognized, we will join with people around the globe to solve problems in common.

Once again, a common and critical reason that the Progressive political revolution did not succeed in any of the three periods discussed is that the cultural revolution was not complete. Not anywhere close in 1920 or 1940; advanced, but not far enough in 1965; however, by 2020…

The forthcoming triumph of the Democratic Party via a newly elected President and control of both houses of Congress may well herald the arrival of the political revolution toward which the children of Gramsci (from FDR to Biden, from Wilson to Obama, from Johnson to Sanders) have been driving us. It fills me with nausea, horror, sorrow and fear to write that last sentence. The land of the free, the bastion of liberty, whose light the whole world looked to for freedom the last quarter millennium may be overthrown when the revolutionaries take power in 2021. They will:

Abolish the Electoral College and guarantee majority leftist rule perpetually.
Pack the Supreme Court to guarantee leftist “justice.”
Cripple the economy with confiscatory taxes, overwhelmingly burdensome regualtions, banned fossil fuels and profligate government spending.
Reinstitute all the absurd federal regulations removed in the last three years and institute myriad new ones, putting the federal foot on the throat of American business.
Continue to flood the country with aliens not schooled in Western Civilization or representative government.
Persecute those who espouse traditional values, laissez-faire economics, individual rights, American history and exceptionalism, and religious morals.
And very possibly, abrogate the Constitution.

They will purposefully destroy the United States of America as we have known it for nearly two hundred and fifty years.

There will remain tens of millions of Americans who will feel bitterly the loss of their liberty. They will bear testimony to Reagan’s warning, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

They will be persecuted and oppressed if they attempt to express misgivings about the new direction the country has taken. Some, perhaps many, will leave the US – voluntarily, or even involuntarily. Many of them will eventually be co-opted. But I predict that a large number will remain a seething sore in the body politic of the new unfree America. What will happen to them? Fortunately (for me) I am of an age that will almost certainly prevent me from finding out.

Two final thoughts. First, even if by some miracle, the Dems do not take control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress in January, it is just a matter of time until they do. The flood of illegal immigration and the brainwashing – in school and by the media – continue unabated. It is inevitable that conservative America will be reduced to a voting minority. And then the revolution will be unstoppable. I take some solace from the last sentence of the previous paragraph.

On the other hand, perhaps I am underestimating the strength, character and wisdom of the American people. I recall vividly the fear I felt in 1967 and 1968 when American cities were burning, a savage war tore at the very fabric of our society, riots determined the selection of a president, and we seemed on the cusp of revolutionary change. It didn’t happen. The good sense of the American people prevailed as we restored order and proceeded to rely on our traditional beliefs and values to right the ship. Hopefully, we shall again.

An abridged version of this essay appeared in The American Thinker on Oct 14, 2020

The Nature of Freedom

The title suggests that there might be something ambiguous about the definition of freedom. Well according to our old friends Merriam and Webster, it is “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” Sounds about right to me. The freedoms enjoyed by all Americans are – according to our Declaration of Independence – natural rights, inherent to us as human beings, granted to us by Nature or God, and not by the Government, but secured for us by the Government. I’ve emphasized the word to for a reason that will be clear momentarily.

OK what are those rights that I have, my possession of which is characterized by the absence of necessity, coercion or constraint? These are spelled out generally in the Declaration, more specifically in the Constitution – including the Bill of Rights – and in the constitutionally permissible laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. There is no secret here; they include:

the right to reside where I choose
the right to pursue the vocation I choose
the right to marry, and more generally associate with, whomever I choose
the right to worship as I wish
the right to petition the Government
the right to peacefully assemble
the right to state my opinion
the right to a trial by a jury of my peers if accused of a crime.

There are more of course, but note the common word to. That is not surprising since Webster specifies that a freedom entails a choice or an action – that is, things I choose to do or act upon – which choice or action is free from necessity, coercion or constraint. And so it has been understood – from the time of the American Revolution.

But beginning in the late 1890s, catching fire in the 1910s, and reigniting strongly in the 1930s, 1960s and 2010s, a substantial minority – and increasingly, looking like a majority – of the American people have settled on an alternate definition of the word freedom. If I may be permitted the liberty, I would state the new definition as follows: “the presence of security, comfort or guarantees in state or being.”

Now let us follow on this new definition with an exact parallel to the discussion above following the classic definition. First, the folks who propound the new definition rarely, explicitly discuss the origin or fount for these rights which are to be accorded to all residents of the USA. They – like Mr. Jefferson – hold them to be self-evident; but they scarcely specify their author, originator, source or justification. Self-evidence seems to be enough – although, alas, what is evident to you may be opaque to me.

Well, what are these rights that I should have that will guarantee my well-being by rendering my state more comfortable and secure? They have been spelled out by the presidential founders of progressivism: Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Obama. They include:

freedom from want (i.e., poverty)
freedom from fear (i.e., anything that makes me afraid); e.g.
freedom from expression of opinions that make me uncomfortable
freedom from prejudice
freedom from unfair competition (esp. from those more skilled or experienced than me)
freedom from violence (e.g., presence of guns)
freedom from superstition (i.e., religion)
freedom from incarceration
freedom from armed government agents (the police, ICE, etc.)
freedom from xenophobia (e.g., about undocumented immigrants).

Note now that the common word is from rather than to. That is because these freedoms do not pertain to an action or choice, but to a feeling or emotion or an external force on one’s person. As with ‘freedom to,’ there are more than those delineated above, e.g., freedom from illness or freedom from ignorance. And as with the first set of freedoms, these new freedoms are to be secured or guaranteed by the Government. But unlike the first set of freedoms, these are not granted or accorded to us by Nature or God; they are not natural rights in that sense. They are simply rights that just ought to be accorded to all individuals – or more precisely – to all groups living in an advanced society.

By whose authority? By the people themselves since the rights are self-evidently manifest to any enlightened member of society. Moreover, unlike the natural rights in the Founders’ society, the rights in the modern, enlightened society may evolve and change over time. New rights may be discovered; old rights may be discarded. Finally, the people, via their primary vehicle, the Government, determine what the current set of rights are, and then enforce them also via the Government. Thus, a “Living Constitution!” Which of course implies: Obsolescence of the Declaration and Abrogation of the Constitution.

It’s not my purpose here to compare the relative merits of the two systems. Rather it is to ensure that we understand the fundamental difference between the two definitions of freedom, and to allow the reader to ponder the drastic and overwhelming changes that would ensue if we the people discard the first definition and adopt the second. I will examine some of those changes in a future piece.

This article appeared in Canada Free Press on July 9, 2020

The Role of Religion in Liberty

It seems self-evident that in order for a free society to succeed, the people of that society must be virtuous. How so? Well, if all the citizens of a country are free to choose where to live, what vocation to pursue, with whom to associate and how/whether to worship, then with everyone free to make all those choices, it is inevitable that conflicts, inconsistencies and disputes will naturally arise. Members of the same family may disagree on where to live. Members of the same organization may – nay, will – fail to see eye-to-eye on how to run the organization. Business partners cannot agree on strategy to grow the company. Parents and children often fail to have a meeting of the minds on career path, social entanglements and how to pass leisure time. Co-religionists have different views on methods of worship or acceptable modes of behavior. Johnny and Sally – although married for years – may come to contrary opinions on parenting methods.

It is inescapable that free choice leads to conflicting choices. Thus the success of a free society requires that its people exhibit a tremendous amount of tolerance, patience, empathy, understanding, sympathy, reserve, deference, respect, generosity and a willingness to compromise. These are the qualities that mark a virtuous person. That is, a person of high moral character, who manifests exemplary behavior, is kind and considerate to others, a true “good person,” a paragon of virtue. But note that these are exactly the qualities taught to and urged upon us by the religions to which we ascribe.

Now this observation that for a free society to succeed, its populace must be virtuous, is hardly novel. It was made at the time that the “modern world” began to conclude that a society whose inhabitants are free is a much better way to organize said society than methods heretofore tried. With rare exception, all pre-modern societies were authoritarian, totalitarian, oligarchic, monarchal or otherwise classified, in which the average person was not free to make the choices we treasure (although often take for granted). Where to live, with whom to associate, how to earn a living, even whom (and how) to worship were prescribed for almost all individuals by others. During the Enlightenment, especially in the British Isles, but then spreading to North America and gradually to much of the globe, the notion that human beings ought to be free to organize their lives themselves became widespread. The implementation of the idea has been fitful depending on time and place over the last three centuries. Moreover, in certain places where it has been implemented (even if only partly), the requirement of a virtuous citizenry has been overlooked – with awful consequences. See for example, Russia in the 1990s, or Germany in the 1920s, or perhaps Iran in the 1970s.

I take the following two precepts as given and indisputable. First, human beings have the right to be free. Whether the right is conferred by God, Nature, some cosmic force, or even a group of men who put a few lines on a piece of paper (i.e., Founders writing a Constitution), the right is absolute and indisputable. Second, in order to successfully exercise that right, the free people must be a virtuous people. The success of free societies is directly correlated to the degree of virtuosity exhibited by its people.

Now it is not my purpose here to examine – currently or historically – how virtuous are/were the American people and how well/poorly has our free society succeeded. Perhaps in a future essay. Rather I would like to consider the question: whence the virtuosity? The title of the essay suggests an answer. Certainly the Founders (most, but not all of them) believed the answer was to be found in religion. Every major religion suggests that in practicing its tenets, its adherents will manifest virtuous behavior. Which will then play a fundamental role in the exercise of their rights as free human beings – and which, consequently, will engender a harmonious society.

Thus, according to George Washington, in his famous and oft-quoted farewell address:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion, and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.“ [Emphasis mine]

And Benjamin Franklin in a letter written just before the Constitutional Convention:

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

But there are countervailing opinions. Many have believed – and many still believe – that it is eminently possible to be virtuous without being at all religious. (Thomas Jefferson was a subscriber to this idea.) Theories and movements have grown up around the idea (Secular Humanism, e.g.). The evidence for its truth is mixed. Certainly history is full of exemplary characters who did not subscribe to any particular religion. Jefferson himself might be cited as an example – although recent research calls into question his virtuosity. But without naming names, I suggest that Western Civilization has witnessed a multitude of individuals who aligned with no specific religion, but who led exemplary lives.

So here are two quotes to serve as a counterbalance to Washington’s opinion. The first is due to the late Christopher Hitchens, a well-known author, described in a NY Times obituary as “a slashing polemicist in the tradition of Thomas Paine and George Orwell…” and the latter is by Matt Dillahunty, described by Wikipedia as an American atheist activist:

Hitchens: “We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.”

Dillahunty: “I get my limits from a rational consideration of the consequences of my actions, that’s how I determine what’s moral. I get it from a foundation that says my actions have an effect on those people around me, and theirs have an effect on me, and if we’re going to live cooperatively and share space, we have to recognize that impact. And my freedom to swing my arm ends at their nose, and that I have no right to impose my will over somebody else’s will in that type of scenario. That’s where I get them from. I get them from an understanding of reality, not an assertion of authority.”

Nasty words from Hitchens, but Dillahunty presents a measured and cogent argument for a rational morality devoid of religion. Nevertheless, I believe that a religious free society has a very good chance of producing a virtuous citizenry. That is, virtue shall follow as a consequence of religious belief, thereby enhancing the chances for a successful free society. Well Hitchens, certainly, and Dillahunty, probably, would not agree. So the question remains: Can an irreligious, but free society generate the requisite virtuosity to succeed?

Perhaps not! Consider the following. Over the last seventy years, most of the countries of Western Europe have been exorcising religion from the lives of their inhabitants. The monumentally beautiful churches of France, Britain and Germany are nearly empty on any given Sunday. Has this resulted in a paucity of virtue? And is liberty in retreat in Western Europe? I cannot answer the first question, but it seems to me that the answer to the second is ‘yes.’ The peoples of Western Europe have been gradually surrendering their freedom to an authoritarian structure in Brussels known as the European Union. By the usual measures: ability to pursue a vocation of one’s choice, etc.; Western Europeans have slowly been losing their freedoms. Thus far the people of America have not made a similar choice. But in their attempt to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic that threatens us, we have moved in that direction recently. Perhaps it is temporary. We’ll see.

To summarize, a virtuous citizenry is required to maintain a successful free society. Virtue can come as a consequence of religion. Can an irreligious society generate the requisite virtuosity? The jury is deliberating. What do you think?

Hillary’s Not Liberal Enough?

According to an article in today’s Wall Street Journal (4/10/15), the left wing of the Democrat Party is not happy about the fact that Hillary is virtually unchallenged for the Party’s presidential nomination. Apparently “…some Democrats think she isn’t liberal enough.”

The opinion is based primarily on two issues: “…her ties to Wall Street and Bill Clinton’s centrist economic record.” The article goes on to describe in general terms how leftist Democrats “…don’t like that she appears more comfortable with bipartisan compromise than populist calls to fight banks and other business interests…”

Then, while attempting to assess whether the charge is legitimate, the article points out that “As a U.S. senator from 2001 until 2009 and as a presidential candidate in 2007 and 2008, she called for universal prekindergarten, equal pay for women, increases in the minimum wage, paid family leave, higher taxes on the wealthy and an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit for working poor families.”

And Hillary Clinton is not liberal enough! The proper conclusion to reach from the article does not concern how far left on the political spectrum lies Ms. Clinton. No, the correct conclusion is that the Democrat Party has moved so far to the left that a prominent person in the Party who, two decades ago, was considered ultra-left, is now insufficiently liberal to meet the Party’s standards.

In 2007 and 2008, the choice for the Democrat Party presidential nomination came down to two of the most leftist candidates ever to compete for said nomination. The Party chose the alternative to Hillary – for reasons that might have had more to do with race, guilt, atonement and healing than with political philosophy. In fact, I believe that Obama was – and is – to the left of Hillary. All of her adult life, Ms. Clinton has qualified as a highly partisan, ideological leftist who subscribed to the progressive agenda for a remake of America. But Barack Obama is a radical leftist, who detests America and Western Civilization, and is committed to an extreme form of the progressive agenda which countenances the destruction of America if that is necessary to usher in the new world order that he envisions.

Today, Hillary is not liberal enough. Thus, it would appear that the Obama/Warren agenda to radically remake America is the mainstream position of the Democrat Party. If the nation does not wake up to that fact, the Democrats may get their wish.

This post also appeared in The American Thinker

Follow &#64rlipsman

The Consequences of America’s Asymmetric Politics

There is a sharp and consequential asymmetry between left and right in American politics. It is my purpose here to describe the asymmetry and explain both its origins and consequences. But first an important clarification: the asymmetry does not refer to the stark differences in political philosophy that characterize the two poles of American political persuasion. Rather, it encompasses the nature of the adherents of each persuasion: how intensely do they believe in the merits of their political ideas; how much legitimacy do they ascribe to their opponents’ views; how well do they understand the role that their sides’ ideas have played in the history of the nation; and what is the level of confidence in the applicability of their ideas to resolutions of the nation’s problems in the future?

Actually, I began this work in an earlier piece in which I essentially considered these topics as applied to the cadre of national GOP candidates. Let me quickly recall that material. As I said in there, with virtually no exceptions, GOP candidates fall into one of the following three categories:

RINOs – meaning that they do not really believe that progressivism and big government are bad for America – it’s just that the Democrats are screwing it up and Republicans should be entrusted with the task of implementing the progressive agenda because they will do it more efficiently and cost effectively than liberal Democrats have or could.

CRUELs – that is, confused Republicans who are unable to exercise leadership. These are conservative politicians whose hearts and minds may be in the right place, but they are unable to: (i) articulate their beliefs; (ii) explain the connection between progressivism and the ills that beset the nation; (iii) describe clearly how conservative policies will enhance liberty and economic prosperity; and (iv) deflect the vicious slanders that the Democrats hurl at them.

CCCs – that is, committed, conservative constitutionalists. These are politicians who have a clear understanding of what the progressives have wrought and how the country has changed. They can envision and describe the bleak future that awaits us if we don’t have a major course correction. Furthermore, such people also have a clear idea of what must be done to return the country to its founding ethos, re-institute the ideals of free market capitalism, constitutional and limited governance, and American exceptionalism and thereby restore the republic. Moreover, they can explain these ideas clearly and simply.

In fact, GOP voters can be pigeon-holed into essentially the same three categories. That is, your average citizen who usually pulls the Republican lever in the election booth can be described in one of these three ways:

Despite the fact that the voter thinks of himself as conservative, said individual has no real objection to the progressive remake of America. He is not opposed to big government; he just feels the government could be run more efficiently and cost-effectively. He favors government entitlement programs like Medicare, Social Security and food stamps. He is fairly liberal on social issues; uncertain about defense matters; and vaguely Keynesian in economic outlook. Exactly why he identifies as a Republican, much less a conservative, is unclear. Perhaps it’s a family tradition; or the extreme left wing positions of too many in the Democrat Party scare him; or, most likely, it’s because he is genuinely confused about what the labels “conservative” or “Republican” should stand for. It’s a sorry fact that so many GOP voters fall into this RINO category. It’s even sorrier that so many GOP candidates do likewise.
A person with bona fide conservative inclinations, but someone who has difficulty articulating those thoughts – either to himself or to others. Such a person will likely sense the flaws and dangers in the progressive agenda, but he lacks the confidence or agility to explain them. If placed in a leadership position, he is unable to motivate or stimulate those under his command to adopt conservative policies – in part because his understanding of them is weak and the influence of the nation’s liberal gestalt (see below) on him has been substantial. Alas, there are a great number of GOP voters who fall under this rubric, and even sadder, a surprising number of GOP leaders who fit this description – Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Chris Christie and Jon Huntsman come to mind. Among the troops, these CRUEL types are a reliable GOP vote, but they rarely have the gumption or depth of belief to convince others to follow them. The CRUEL acronym fits these voters as well as the corresponding politicians, except that this time it stands for “confused Republicans unable to excise liberalism.”
True blue conservatives. That is, those who: have a deep understanding of the path down which progressives have led the nation during the last century; can articulate how conservative principles and policies in place from the American Revolution until the early twentieth century made our nation the freest, most prosperous country in the history of the world; appreciate how, despite the erosion of those principles in the twentieth century, America still managed to retain enough of its moxie to summon the will and courage to twice rescue the world from totalitarianism; and who can explain how the progressive putsch over the last 50 years threatens to destroy our republic, together with its freedoms and prosperity.

The forgoing is a rather sharp delineation of the components of the right wing of America into three distinct and easily identifiable groups. Therefore it is natural to ask: what are the analogs on the left? What are the distinct subclasses and how many are there? Well, the first thing to notice is that DINOs don’t exist. They’re not just extinct – they never existed. There are no self-identifying Democrats who covertly believe (consciously or subconsciously) that individual liberty trumps social justice and equality; or that the government is oppressively big and needs to be reined in; or that affirmative action is really reverse discrimination and a level playing field is all that society owes each individual. There are no Democrats who are comfortable with a Reaganite program of low federal taxes, regulation and spending, strong national defense, pride in American Exceptionalism and promotion of strong, traditional families. There are no Democrat voters who are closet conservatives that feel the conservative program should be pursued – but just with more attention to the welfare of minorities, gays, the poor and the third world. There are no DINOs – period.

But in fact, like the Republicans, the Democrats may be cracked up into three distinct cohorts. Before I describe them, I must mention two critical occurrences over the last two generations that in many ways account for the delineation I am about to offer. The first is that the Democrat Party has moved hard to the left in that time. There are no Scoop Jackson or Pat Moynihan Democrats. Well maybe Joe Lieberman, but he was drummed out of the Party. James Webb and Joe Manchin are pale imitations and, anyway, they are considered stark outliers. The center of gravity of the Democrat Party is far to the left of what it has been anytime from its inception (with the Andrew Jackson era a possible exception) until George McGovern’s nomination. Today, far leftists like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are considered totally mainstream Democrats.

The second feature of American life that has had a tremendous effect on the nature of the Democrat Party is the no longer disputed fact that the left has gained control of virtually all of the opinion-molding organs of America society: the media, public education, the legal profession, higher education, foundations, libraries, seminaries, etc. While it is true that many in the Party are active in that putsch, it is also the fact that the result has had a big effect on the Party. Moreover, it is this phenomenon – the capture of the culture by the left – that is really the origin, the central font, which explains the asymmetry that I am about to describe.

So, here are the categories into which the left divides:

LIVs – that is, low information voters. This encompasses all those who pay little attention to politics; are woefully uninformed about current events; and have barely any understanding of the difference between leftist progressivism and right-wing conservatism. But because of the second fact above, these voters tend to break overwhelmingly for Democrats over Republicans – at least when they accidentally find themselves (or when they are escorted there) in the voting booth.
LEFTYs – By this category I mean citizens who are serious about their politics, measured in their assessments and opinions, but whose political proclivities tend toward collectivism, order/equality over liberty, big government programs, and who see the government as the ultimate source of solutions for any serious problem confronting the US. They may or may not be articulate and terribly coherent in their understanding of or ability to explain their own political inclinations. But they are certain that they lean left and they view the Democrat Party as more representative of their political beliefs than the Republicans.
RADs – that is, the radical wing of the Democrat Party. The name suggests that it should be a small subset, but alas, it has grown in size to be a substantial minority of the American left wing. These are hard-core, doctrinaire leftists – analogous to the hard-core right wing in CCC. They are completely conversant with political issues, believe deeply that America’s history and supposed purpose are irrevocably stained by slavery, racism, sexism and aggressive military force. They see unfettered free enterprise as immoral and believe the State should be the driving force in society.

At first glance, one might see in the six categories – three on each side – a balance in American politics. But it is not so. Here is why.

Among the three cohorts on the right, only one is deeply committed to conservative values. Within the other two cohorts, one is typically confused or uncertain; and the other is more often than not playing for the opposite side. On the other hand, among the three cohorts on the left, two are fundamentally committed to the cause and the one that isn’t is easily swayed by emotion into supporting it.

Now one should augment this analysis by assigning weights according to size of cohort in the six categories. Well, this is difficult to do since there are no surveys in which precisely these six categories are used to pigeon-hole the electorate. Let me just say the following:

Together the CRUELs and RINOs far outnumber the CCCs.
Together the RINOs and LIVs form a substantial portion of the electorate. And of course, typically that combined grouping leans overwhelmingly left.
The CCCs and RADs each constitute a minority of their respective sides; but in each case, they bring a passion and commitment to their cause that the other two components do not. However, the whole raison d’être of the RADs is to seize power, while that of the CCCs is to conserve tradition and render smaller the power of government in the people’s lives.

Next let’s provide answers to the questions posed in the first paragraph. The answers are predicated on the demographic implications of the preceding set of bullets. So, for example, your typical lefty is either a committed progressive who is intolerant of conservative thought, or a low information voter who unthinkingly sympathizes with the progressive agenda. Voters on the right on the other hand include: some deeply conservative persons; but more numerous establishment types, vaguely uncomfortable with the progressive agenda but either uncertain or confused by the conservative program; and a few closet progressives voting for the GOP for peculiar reasons. Thus in answer to the four questions:

Those who believe deeply in the merit of their ideas constitute a higher percentage on the left than on the right.
Neither side ascribes much legitimacy to the other’s point of view. But the right views the left as wrong or misguided; the left believes rightists are either criminal or insane.
Leftists believe that without the progressive progress of the twentieth century, America would have long ago degenerated into into a racist, misogynistic, business-oriented dictatorship. In fact, they think that in spite of twentieth century progress, the country still leans that way. Conservatives believe leftists have abandoned classic American ideals. Leftists see rightist ideas as evil. Rightists see leftist ideas as merely wrong or misguided.
The left believes their policies will lead to nirvana; the right sees theirs leading to a partial restoration of the glory that was America.

In short, the asymmetry can be summed up as follows. Those on the left have a bleak vision of America’s past, are certain that they know how to transform the country so that it will enjoy a more enlightened future and are completely intolerant of any who don’t agree with them. Those on the right feel that the progressives of the 20^th century have betrayed American’s lofty ideals, and wish to restore the American ethos as envisioned by the Founders.

The left is absolutely convinced of the justice of its cause, cannot fathom that it might be wrong and is completely dismissive of the conservative point of view. Whereas the right sometimes sees merit in ideas emanating from the left and is willing to compromise, the left believes the right is totally wrong, hopelessly retrograde and not worthy of respect.

Given the asymmetry just described and (i) above, the right should be getting slaughtered in national elections. And for the most part, it has been – in presidential elections. But as explained in another prior piece, all those LIVs tend to come out only in presidential elections; the right is doing far better in local and even national elections that do not involve a choice for president. Those days might be numbered, however. Again, given the left’s capture of the culture, the asymmetry in the attitudes and behavior between left and right, and the fact that the numbers may become more imbalanced, the prognosis might not be so good for the conservative cause.

This essay also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative

Follow &#64rlipsman