Recognizing the Left for What It Is


David Horowitz, whose shoddy treatment while visiting Brown University some 15 years ago or so, helped draw me to the conclusion that people who see the world as I do have a responsibility to speak out against those undermining our society, turns on the light in the dark room of progressive politics:

The Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky once described Stalinism as “the perfect theory for glueing up the brain.” What he meant was that a regime as monstrous as Stalin’s, which murdered 40 million people and enslaved many times more, was nonetheless able to persuade progressives and “social justice” advocates all over the world to act as its supporters and defenders. These enlightened enablers of Stalin’s crimes included leading intellectuals of the day, even Nobel Prize winners in the sciences and the arts such as Frederic Joliot-Curie and Andre Gide. But brilliant as they were, they were blind to the realities of the Stalinist regime and, therefore, to the virtues of the free societies they lived in.

What glued up their brains was the belief that a brave new world of social justice — a world governed by progressive principles — existed in embryo in Soviet Russia and had to be defended by any means necessary.

So much of the progressive worldview is built on lies from top to bottom.  Horowitz goes through some of the modern examples — “hands up don’t shoot,” anti-Muslim backlash, and so on.

Kevin Williamson takes up the similar theme of the Left’s double-standard for behavior of its political allies and people who are merely their countrymen and -women, also on NRO:

The Obama administration can traffic guns to Mexican drug cartels, poison rivers, assassinate American citizens, more or less make up health-care law as it goes, lie about critical foreign-policy questions, and criminally mishandle sensitive information, and all of that amounts to – nothing. For it to amount to anything, you’d need a Justice Department, an FBI, and federal judges with self-respect sufficient to outweigh their institutional political cowardice. And that we do not have.

A couple of militia nuts squat in a vacant visitor center at an obscure park in Oregon and the Left, with one voice, bays for blood. Black Lives Matter rioters torch Baltimore and Ferguson, assault police and innocent bystanders, and attempt to burn human beings alive with Molotov cocktails, and — nothing.

As I wrote with reference to Alinsky, the progressive strategy is to constrain acceptable behavior to further their own ends and to create disincentive for the public to defend its victims.  In this exercise, it is entirely unprincipled, as illustrated with fantastic clarity by University of Missouri Professor Richard Callahan when using his authoritative position to explicitly enforce social rules in a one-sided way.

This fire can’t be fought with fire, because its foundation is that truth and principle don’t matter.  Conservatives could only win by losing.  What’s needed is the cool, overwhelming flood of common sense and fairness.

  • Rhett Hardwick

    I too remember the Horowitz incident at Brown. All copies of the college
    paper containing an ad he had purchased for his lecture on “reparations” were stolen by students and destroyed. As far as I can recall, no punishment was meted out. Nor, even seriously considered.

    Although I am too young, and my college would never have tolerated it, it
    is difficult to understand the academic favoritism towards communism.
    Particularly knowing what we know today. The academic philosophy was basically “communism is the ideal social construct, it is just that the Russians haven’t got it quite right”. The implication being that it would eventually be “set right”. Try to imagine professors proudly proclaiming “I am a card carrying communist”, meaning they held a membership card in the CPUSA.

    A little known factoid, Britain and the USA sent troops to Russia
    (Murmansk?) at the close of WWI. Theoretically they were there to “protect” war supplies sent to Russia and no longer needed with the end of the war (wouldn’t it have been easier to ship those supplies back?). In fact they were there to aid the “White Russians” should they be able to turn the tide against the “Reds”. It might have been a very different century if they had acted.