A critique of modern liberalism

The old liberals are my heroes. Thomas Paine, Franklin Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson did more to make better the lives of the poor and downtrodden than nearly anyone in modern history.

But at some point between Woodrow Wilson and AOC, the liberal ideology was commandeered by the true enemy of the cause of conservatism, the radicals. Throughout our nation’s history, liberal and conservative have had a healthy ebb and flow – democrat and republican, Federalist and Jacksonian, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Power transferred peacefully from one group to the next, and each brought about some meaningful change or revitalization that benefitted our nation. This is no longer the case.

While my party is certainly not innocent of engaging in radicalism and exacerbating the void between democrats and republicans, it is the left wing of the democrat party that has gone entirely off of the reservation.

To call Bernie Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez liberal really isn’t accurate in the classical sense. Classical liberalism had a well articulated philosophy rooted in a clearly defined system of values. Today’s liberalism has but one value, the contempt for any popular virtue that restrains the appetites of man. I want it. I want it for free. I want it right now. This is not philosophy, it is avarice. The democrat party has abandoned American values wholesale, and leapt headlong into the unquenchable fire of secularism.

The party’s leaders are on a mission to build an earthly utopia by the full power of centralized government, complete with free health care, free liberal arts education, and free immigration, with little or no caveats set on the recipients. Nothing will stop the radicals’ march, seemingly, not even the laws of nature and the longstanding consensuses of humanity.

For millennia uncounted, mankind has held to certain common sense truths and values. That you can’t spend more than you make. That our actions are guided by Providence in some form or another. That fire burns, water wets, up is up, down is down, a man is a man, and a woman a woman. The radical rejects these, because they are stumbling blocks to his one true goal, the immediate satisfaction of appetite. When truth becomes an obstacle, the truth becomes manipulated.

Restraint is a thing of the past. We have removed God from the public sphere, and embraced moral relativism. There is no anchor holding down our society anymore. We are a tiny ship, tossed about in a massive unnavigable sea. Drowning men are desperate and dangerous. The uncertain social landscape we must navigate in this age is wrought with social media tribunals, comprised of scared misguided sailors, hoping that they don’t miss a memo on the new national morality of the month, and thus find themselves in the guillotine.

Do not misunderstand. I’m not decrying progress wholesale. Various aspects of society always call for improvement and gradual change, with gradual being the operative word. True reform requires true debate. Often times it takes many years and several administrations before a national consensus is established on a sticky social issue. That is not the route of the revolutionary. They want immediate, overnight change with little debate and dissidents guilted or threatened into submission. If you don’t think we’re in the middle of a cultural revolution, ask yourself this question, “what beliefs did I proudly espouse only a few years ago that today would ostracize me?”

The radical believes we are animals, highly evolved and trusting in our own reason and intellect to secure paradise on earth independent of a higher moral authority. A great liberal and reformer in his own time, Winston Churchill, espoused a very different idea about humankind and it’s purpose in life during a fireside chat.

When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn that we are spirits, not animals, and that something is going on in space and time, and beyond space and time, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.

If we are to survive as a free people we must categorically reject this radical cultural revolution. We must reject the dictates of the arrogant intelligentsia, and embrace the well worn but not withered wisdom handed down by our forefathers. We must ask ourselves, do we believe what we believe because the facts support it, or because it’s easy? We must assert the existence of absolute truth as laid out by Providence, and we must defend that truth even when, especially when, it has fallen out of popular favor.

I will conclude with an excerpt from Kipling’s The God’s of the Copybook Headings, one of the greatest literary works of our time. Written in 1918, this poem rings true today.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind…

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Cheddar; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things…

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, 
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; 
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, 
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: 
“If you don’t work you die.”

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

3 thoughts on “A critique of modern liberalism

    • This reads more like a manifesto than a critique. No hard facts or specific situations were laid out. Everything here is generalization and conjecture, and it becomes very difficult to see or relate with your opinion without a single reference to a specific situation. While very well stated, youโ€™re not actually arguing anything concrete, so it makes it very difficult to see your perspective as anything more than the ravings of one who refuses to see the merit in othersโ€™ opinions. I only say this because I would like to understand your point of view ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿผ Please keep writing!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s