Rather long-winded, but if you've got an hour or two (which I don't really have right now) you might find it interesting...
DEFINING LEFTISMIt's got some thought-provoking statements, to be sure.What appears below is an attempt to analyse most aspects of Leftist political thinking and display the psychological and sociological roots of such thinking in an historical context.
The intellectual poverty of the Left shows itself very clearly in their lack of ideas. The only way that they can ever think of for bringing about their desired utopias is the brutishly simply one of FORCING people to behave in the "right" way, by way of legislation in democatic societies or on pain of death in Communist societies.Oddly, the article referenced was dated 1 April 2006, which might mean the article was satirically intended... but then again maybe not.We have an excellent example of such brainlessness in a recent article which argues that the U.S. Left needs to become more socialist. The article consists of nothing but one long wail about the injustices of the world and simply ASSERTS that socialism is the answer -- with no supportive reasoning at all about HOW socialism might fix things -- which is all the more remarkable given the known FAILURES of socialism to fix anything.
And another counterfactual assertion above is that capitalism will increase poverty. Since capitalism is provably the the best and surest way of increasing wealth, the statement is deliberately wrongheaded. And it is of course the advanced capitalist societies that have done most to clean up their environment and prevent further degradation of it. You have to be devoid of all knowledge and understanding of how the world actually works (and has worked) to spout the nonsense that our brainless socialist does.Well, the USSR was such an economic sucess, I can't imagine anyone NOT wanting to go that political route. The article mentioned in the paragraph above is excerpted...Just to REALLY ruin the party, however, let it be noted that the ONLY adult general population survey I know of that obtained both IQ scores and a record of political attitudes was Martin's study (which I helped write up for the academic journals). And that study showed that it was LEFTISTS who were most likely to be dumb. The correlation in the general population between anti-authority attitudes (which Leftists pride themselves on) and low IQ was quite substantial as such correlations go. So survey research shows that it is in fact Leftist attitudes that are associated with stupidity!
ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM: AN INDICATOR OF PATHOLOGYOther interesting bits...Further interest attaches to the way in which this distinction is made, since the anti-rational-authoritarian is shown to possess many of the attributes, both as regards social position and personality characteristics, which were supposed by Adorno et al. to characterise the pro-irrational-authoritarian. It might now be argued that the concept of authoritarianism has been overgeneralised and that what is of prime importance is whether the authority to which one defers has or has not claims to rational support. Rejecting the right kind and accepting the wrong kind of authority appear to be equally indicative of social and personal inadequacy.
In this connection the relationships with intelligence would seem to be illuminating. Agreement with pro-authoritarian (F-scale items) and agreement with anti-authoritarian items (Rudin negative) are both negatively related to intelligence, leaving us with what appears to be almost a truism; people of low intelligence are likely to accept irrational authority and reject rational authority, i.e. to fail in discrimination between what is rational and what is not.
Another illustration of the quite foul depths to which the equality doctrine can sink is the repeated claim by Leftists of "moral equivalence" between very disparate people and groups. For instance, at the height of the Cold War, Leftists would routinely claim that Communist regimes and the economically successful "Western" democracies such as the United States were morally equivalent -- that neither was more blameworthy or praiseworthy than the other. When President Reagan called a spade a spade and described the USSR as an "evil empire", this was regarded as shocking and ignorant by US liberals. How anybody can see any equivalence between systems that murder millions without trial because of their suspected political views (as Stalin did in the USSR and Pol Pot did in "Kampuchea") and countries that either have no death penalty at all or agonize over every such penalty that they inflict (even when the penalty is for the most heinous crimes) defies imagination. Such "moral imbecility" is startlingly reminiscent of the psychopath and the role of psychopathy in Leftism will therefore be taken up later.It might be worth wading through. Hope you enjoy it!
J.
Comments (4)
Yes, anyone with these problems is definitely a defeatocrat too. Sad to say that this virulent condition spreads, although much of the population is resistant to it. The disease itself will mutate just enough to get taken seriously on one topic and then quickly change topics so as to sweep away clear thinking and rationality by doing so. Some minor point of policy will suddenly become an indictment of all Governments and then have suggested that some sort of Elite is better situated to make decisions for society. A simple conversation about sports teams can suddenly turn to the meaning of 'group collective rights' as necessary for social harmony.
Posted by ajacksonian | December 29, 2006 3:04 PM
Posted on December 29, 2006 15:04
Progressives and their Leftist kin tend to value the appearance of fairness and the ideological purity of motive over functionality.
If the proposed solution to a problem is considered by the 'people who matter' to be emotionally uplifting for both sufferer and solver then it then it passes the first test for fairness. Secondarily the proposed solution must undergo a test for ideological purity; the proposed solution must be of no benefit or, preferably, constitute a substantial economic penalty for the rich white capitalist oppressors of the underprivileged classes.
If the proposed solution passes both tests then it obviously it's the 'Proper Thing To Do' and its universal application and immediate implementation may not be questioned on pain of expulsion from the ranks of the enlightened.
Whether it works or not is beneath enlightened consideration.
Otpu
Posted by Otpu | December 29, 2006 8:28 PM
Posted on December 29, 2006 20:28
John -
I think you've got it right - it's the background of the idea that's important, not whether it stands a chance in hell of working.
When did we get to the point where the idea was more important than the results?
Posted by JLawson | December 30, 2006 12:00 PM
Posted on December 30, 2006 12:00
AJacksonian -
Public sentiment's a fickle thing, apt to swing at a moment's notice or in response to a traumatic event. It's hard to tell what way it'll go, but I think a lot of people are getting really tired of the "It's all our fault" memes that some keep trying to spread, and the next event will see a widespread rejection of them.
J.
Posted by JLawson | December 30, 2006 12:03 PM
Posted on December 30, 2006 12:03