Has Liberalism become Leftism in America? The two aren’t necessarily synonymous. One could be liberal and not Leftist. But is the distinction less visible today? A key characteristic (perhaps the defining characteristic) of Leftism is the denial of evil. The world, for the Leftist believer, is a struggle between poor and rich, or powerfull and powerless, but not between good and evil. Has Leftism overcome liberalism in America? Prager:
This is one more example of the greatest flaw of contemporary liberalism — its inability to recognize and confront the greatest evils. Since the 1960s, when liberalism became indistinguishable from the Left — e.g., when New York Times positions became indistinguishable from those of The Nation — liberals tended to attack opponents of evil far more than those who actually committed evil. The Left (around the world) was far more antagonistic to Ronald Reagan than to Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, and far more disturbed by anti-Communism than by Communism.
So, too, today. For example, with few exceptions (the liberal columnist Thomas Friedman being one of the most notable) one only hears conservatives use the term “Islamo-fascism.†Nearly the entire academic world that discusses the issue is far more concerned with the threat of “Islamophobia†than of Islamo-fascism. Liberal and left-wing anger is largely reserved for conservatives and especially conservative Christians, while analogous antipathy about Islamic groups with genocidal designs on Israel or America is largely to be found on the Right.
Interesting article I ran into from looking at my incoming links. Thanks to contra-mundum.com and realclearpolitics.com
7 users commented in " The Left’s Inability to Confront Evil "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThe article assumes there are only two positions, left and right. While the left condemns the condemners of evil and the right is busy condemning evil, there is a third position. That is the position of libertarianism. Libertarians advocate a plan which will remove us from being a target of evil thereby rendering the other two positions meaningless.
Though you’ve eliminated yourself from being a target, us other two groups still exist - in droves, so I tend to think we haven’t been successfully rendered meaningless. This middle-of-the-road, untargeted, compromising position tends to leave some libertarians, I think, with very little conviction at all.
Who is “middle-of-the-road, untargeted, compromising”? I don’t see anyone here that fits that description.
I’m not sure there are any here. I speak from conversations outside of the forums. Libertarians sound most noble when expounding upon the principles and ideals upon which this faltering nation was founded. I believe though, that they are contributing to its demise when they insist that Truth is relative, and there are no absolutes.
Special rights for homosexuals seems a common thread among Libertarians, yet one wonders why, since we all have equal protection under the law. Why should we grant special rights based upon one’s sexual preference? Accepting the mainstreaming of dangerous and unhealthy behavior is helping to promote it. It’s not progressive, it’s regressive.
I’ve always thought Libertarians are Liberals with (un)common sense, or Conservatives with little abiding faith. I don’t wish to “preach” about liberating the oppressed being a biblical mandate, and there being no greater sacrifice than for a man to give his life for another, so suffice it to say that perhaps war should be left to the more stout of heart. After all, there is no draft, and our brave soldiers understood the risks at the start.
God has reserved for them a special place in eternity.
I do believe Libertarians share the Liberal position on the war for different reasons. Liberals hate America, have simple unmitigated fear, and they fancy themseves the peacemakers; Libertarians have an overarching desire for self-preservation, which leaves little room for sacrifice. And they hate war in general, but so do most people, even me.
Was it Franklin who said Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither? Though I would generally agree, I’m just not sure he had deluded suicidal Islamo-fascists, willing to slam planes into our buildings in mind when he said it. Though I’m not completely familiar with The Patriot Act, it just seems a logical and necessary step at this volatile stage in our history.
Sorry for being so winded. I’m going to be out of commission for a few days.
@Oracle,
Libertarian values must sound terrible to someone like you - self-reliance, personal responsibility, equal opportunity for all. As for relative Truths and no absolutes, that appears to be your definition to fit your views. As for homosexuals seeking “special rights”, that is a mischaracterization of the laws as currently written, they are seeking the same rights. Libertarians do not discriminate on the basis of association unless there is harm caused to others. Your view of libertarians, as well as liberals and conservatives, is very tidy and narrow-minded, unfortunately it does not reflect reality.
Mike, I only chose the three things that I know of, where Libertarians and Conservatives diverge. Some of my closest (and most engaging!) friends
are Libertarians.
I’m not sure I understand some of your comments. “..self-reliance, personal responsibility, equal opportunity for all” are very Conservative and Libertarian principles alike - why would that sound terrible to me?
What rights are denied homosexuals and provided to everyone else? If your comments about discrimination refer to the homosexual community, and what you may believe is harmless about their behavior, if we start with death - fatal disease with no cure - we’d only be scratching the surface. Perhaps it’s a subject better left alone.
Yes, perhaps we should since you are unaware that “the” disease does not discriminate.
Leave A Reply