[Why liberals can’t think]
Liberalism today is not an idea or a doctrine so much as an attitude
— hardly more than an empty and muddled sneer. I have before me a
confused attack on all things the writer chooses to call “right
wing.” And just what might that be?
Your guess is as good as mine. Our writer never bothers defining
this rhetorically laden term. Is the essence of this “right wing” maximal
or minimal government? Fascism or libertarianism? Constitutionalism
or monarchy? A strict and formal traditionalism or some form of arbitrary
dictatorship? Who knows? He probably means most or all of these things,
and others as well.
The liberal attitude is strongly averse to definition, censuring
it as “extremism” and consistency as “ideology.” The
liberal mind is endlessly indulgent toward communism, with which it
finds no difference that can’t be amicably split. Liberals are
rarely horrified by communism, in contrast to their utter abhorrence
of Nazism. Never mind that communism abolishes basic freedoms other
despotisms have almost always left alone, such as the rights to emigrate,
to reproduce, to worship, to trade — all of which can become capital
offenses under Red regimes. Not to mention the enormous disparity in
Need one add that Western liberals have always been suckers for communist
hero worship — of Stalin, Mao, and Castro, not to mention Lenin, Trotsky,
and Guevara? Their professed aspirations are honored, even as their
historical records are ignored, excused, and concealed.
It goes without saying that liberals assume their own moral superiority
to everything “right-wing,” never mind that anticommunism
has correctly judged its enemy at virtually every step.
Liberals have always scorned the testimony of refugees from communist
regimes, accusing them of greed and other base motives (and of being
embittered), while honoring refugees from “right-wing” tyrannies
as high-minded freedom lovers. All men, even popes, are expected to
speak out against “right-wing” tyranny and are condemned
if they fail to do so, but they are “strident” or worse
if they denounce communism. And in academia, it remains fashionable
today to call oneself a Marxist.
Liberals’ verbal skills rarely include listening to themselves,
or reflecting on the implications of their own words. The root of this
weakness is their refusal to admit the obvious truth that government
means force, so that you can’t increase freedom by expanding
the state. For example, “civil rights” has come to mean
curtailing our freedom — our freedom to choose our associates. But
this hasn’t stopped liberals from equating an increase in coercive
laws with more rights for all, though we know that such laws usually
come at the expense of white people’s liberty.
Try calling yourself a national socialist and see where it gets you.
Yet the historian John Lukacs points out that the term “national
socialist” well describes most of today’s governments,
despite its discreditable associations. True, it has been a while since
Lincoln Steffens could return from a visit to the Soviet workers’ paradise
exulting, “I have been over into the future, and it works.” Nevertheless,
Barack Obama still essentially shares the old socialist faith in the
efficacy of Gov’t A’mighty. The remedy for a recession
is government intervention, even if such intervention caused the recession
in the first place.
And of course he subscribes to the latest fashions in amorous morality,
such as the absurd notion that homosexuals can marry each other. If
something even crazier comes along (I can’t imagine what that
might be), no doubt he will embrace that as well.
“Change” was his empty campaign slogan, and that’s
all he stands for: flux. Not unchanging principle, but endless mutability.
Obama is already committed to next year’s fashion, be it what
If abortion, “choice,” means killing the innocent, well,
that’s fine with him. The question is metaphysical — as he has
so crassly said, beyond his pay grade. And yet he dares to call himself
But let us imagine a more glorious possibility. Suppose he becomes
truly converted to Jesus and spends his presidency trying to do God’s
will and setting an example for others. It can happen, if we pray for
him. After all, the Lord has performed even greater miracles than that,
and he is still trying to save this man and also all the victims who
may perish with him as he rules.
The Reactionary Utopian columns are copyright © 2009
by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, www.fgfbooks.com, P.O.
Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183. All rights reserved.
Editor may use this column if copyright information is included.
Joe Sobran is an author and a syndicated columnist. See complete bio
and latest writings.
Watch Sobran on YouTube.
To subscribe, renew, or support further columns by Joe Sobran, please send
a tax-deductible donation to the:
Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation
P.O. Box 1383
or sponsor online.