First and foremost, to understand how the modern liberal thinks, one should start with The Closing of the American Mind by Professor Allan Bloom. Teaching since the 1950s, Professor Bloom was trying to figure out why suddenly in the 80s his students were so stupid. Okay, he didn’t exactly use the word “stupid.”
What Bloom said is that once he had received from the public schools what he would call scholars, young adults who arrived at the university to seek the better – the better literature, the better religion, the better philosophy, the better forms of governments. But suddenly in the 1980s, when the offspring of the children of the 60s arrived at the university, when the first generation not to have been raised by those of the “greatest generation,” the values that preceded the “greatest generation” were no longer present.
What Professor Bloom concluded was that they were raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. That the only way to be moral is to not discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies because your act of discrimination – discriminating between these things might just be a reflection of your personal discrimination, your bigotries. They were raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated.
The second bullet point, and this is an essential corollary, is that indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. It leads the modern liberal to invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Why? If nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than anything else then success is de facto unjust. There is no explanation for success if nothing is better than anything else and the greater the success the greater the injustice.
Conversely and for the same reason, failure is de facto proof of victimization and the greater the failure, the greater the proof of the victim is, or the greater the victimization. The indiscriminate with regards to culture, is that all cultures must be deemed equally good and equally right and equally valid — that the multiculturalist must “de facto invariably and inevitably ” become an apologist for tyranny. Therefore, he must also de facto become antagonist to liberty.
And, in fact, if you extrapolate this out to all of those who are indiscriminate across the board, not just with regard to culture, they must de facto become antagonistic towards all that is good, right, and successful and antagonistic towards all that is evil, failed, and wrong. Think about it this way: if we can agree, if we can stipulate that the United States is the most successful nation in human history, that we are the most prosperous, that we are the strongest, that we are the most ingenuous and creative and productive; if we can stipulate that, in essence there are only two possibilities to explain it.
Either there is something exceptional about our culture, about our founding documents, about the unprecedented Judeo-Christian heritage, about our Protestant work ethic, whatever it is, it combines to create culture. And that what is exceptional about our culture nurtures productivity, prosperity, strength. Or there is nothing special about our culture and, therefore, our success is an unjust. The duration and the magnitude of our success makes this injustice not just accidental, not just some luck along the way. It’s got to be proof positive of our having cheated. Our success is de factor unjust and the degree of our success proves that we are the most unjust peoples in the history of the world.
At this point the modern liberal, the multiculturalists has already taken one of those two possibilities off the table. He cannot believe that it is an exceptional culture because he wouldn’t be a multiculturalist if he could. So with only two possibilities and having removed one of them from the table, the modern liberal does not have to engage in what he considers a hate crime which is rational and moral thought because the answer is pre-ordained.
America must have stolen our success because any other conclusion would be an act of bigotry. Therefore, at this point he may finally engage his intellect for the first time, not to arrive at the truth, but for no other purpose than to support the pre-ordained conclusion that America is the most unjust nation in the history of the world. So he will proclaim quite articulately from time-to-time that Americans are evil imperialists – not because we are imperialists, because we’re not. The facts are overwhelmingly clear: could anybody legitimately argue that after World War II we put a gun to the Japanese heads, put our governments in charge, and said destroy our auto industry, it will make us richer?
Could anybody legitimately argue that after World War II we took over the French government, put a gun to their heads, and said for the next 60 years “run around the world stabbing us in the back,” it will be good for America.? Of course not, we are not imperialists. Think about this: when Nazi Germany was the world’s superpower, they tried to take over the world. France and Napoleon tried to take over the world, Great Britain tried to take over the world, Islam has tried to take over the world.
We are the world’s lone superpower. We have not taken over Canada!. But it doesn’t matter to the left that we’re not imperialists. There has to be something other than our exceptionalism that explains it because truth, fact, reason, logic, and evidence are not employed by the modern progressive Democrat, the dominant force in today’s Democratic Party.
I am not the only one to have noticed this. Howard Zinn, the leftist author of the most assigned text in American history, the book from which our children learned about history, said that objective truth, objective fact, objectivity is undesirable. It’s undesirable if you seek to have history support a political agenda. I am misquoting him slightly but you get the gist.
Objective truth is undesirable if history should serve a social purpose. And what is that social purpose? To show that good isn’t good and evil isn’t evil, right isn’t right and wrong isn’t wrong? The behaviors that lead to failure aren’t bad, the ones that lead to success aren’t good. And by the way, it is for this reason that any time you see an anti-America rally masquerading as an anti-war rally hand-in-hand with those who are trying to undermine America’s defense, usually funded by George Soros, they are those who are screaming hatred against the Jews of Israel.
Jewish hatred is as endemic to modern liberalism, de facto to the multiculturalist as is America hatred for exactly the same reason. How do you explain the history of the Jews? How do you explain that these people have survived with their culture intact longer than any other civilization in human history? How do you explain that anywhere where the Jews live, so long as he is not being murdered, he tends to thrive? How do you explain that just as it says in the Bible, that any nation that treats its Jews well will do well and any nation that treats its Jews badly will do poorly, like the Arab and Muslim world today?
How do you explain that the nation that treats the Jews better than any other nation in the history of the world, America, is the best and most successful nation in the history of the world? And finally, how do you explain the miracle of this tiny dot of desert in the Middle East that had been administered by the Arabs and the Muslims for millennia accomplishing nothing, who almost instantly, upon the return of the Jews and Jewish administration, becomes a First World economy with a thriving symphony orchestra and Nobel Prize winning physicists and cutting edge technologies. How do you explain this?
Again, there are only two possibilities. Either there is something exceptional about the Jewish culture, something about the Ten Commandments, something about the Torah and the Talmud that fosters success or there is nothing special about the Jews and, therefore, their success is unjust and, again, the duration and magnitude of success proves that it has to be chicanery. The multiculturalist, the indiscriminate, those who cannot recognize the better fear that the recognition of the better might just be their own bigotries.
Not only must the modern liberal attack that which is good, right, and successful, he must justify the crimes, the evil, failure, and wrong. He must turn the act of criminality into proof that the criminal has been victimized. That’s all the proof they need. The fact that the terrorists flew those airplanes into our buildings is proof positive that the terrorists have been provoked because to not believe that they had not been provoked would be an act of racism. You would be saying that the Muslims are bad people, that they would murder wantonly, unprovoked and that is not allowed de facto to the multiculturalist.
So the act of criminality is proof positive of victimization and the more heinous the crime the more victimized they must have been. And once again it does not matter what the facts and evidence prove since modern liberals are not allowed to employ fact and evidence. Fact, reason, and evidence are things employed by people who are attempting to discriminate. It doesn’t matter the facts overwhelmingly debunk the claim that they were provoked.
And when Barack Obama’s mentor, Jeremiah Wright, gave us his explanation — what it is that we did that was so horrible, that we deserved to be burned alive and attacked in our buildings — it led on a litany of half truths and outright lies. It does not matter because objective truth is undesirable to the left. Seeking the truth is an act of bigotry to the left. In fact, not only must the modern liberal attack that which is good, prove that the attacks were provoked, he must elevate the degree of evil committed by the victim.
This is only a portion of a speech given by Evan Sayet to the Heritage Foundation – “Hating What’s Right: How the Modern Liberal Winds Up on the Wrong Side of Every Issue.” You can read the speech in its entirety sat this link. You might also be interested in Sayet’s book, “KinderGarden of Eden: How The Modern Liberal Thinks” (And Why He Thinks That Ignorance Is Bliss).
“Liberalism breeds mediocrity. In fact, it’s a requirement….” Curtice Mang