Today, when a pundit or member of the media describes the philosophy of one whose views fall on the left side of the political spectrum, he or she never fails to be labeled as a “liberal”. Really now, looking beyond the stereotypes and vitriol spewed from the partisans and shock jocks on either side of the aisle, is there any truth to this description? Is being a leftist, in reality, synonymous with being a liberal? Not in the least.
I can already sense that my hard-left and hard-right readers have come dangerously close to spilling their Flavor Aid, brimming with anger at the sheer audacity I must have to contradict the indisputably true proclamations of their beacons of truth and light in this deceptive and dark world; namely Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh, and an assortment of other moonbats who thrive on society’s fringes. Do not fret, though, as I have the evidence necessary to support my claims. In all honesty, only a reference to the definition of the term “classical liberalism” is needed. According to the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, classical liberalism is, essentially, what would be considered by most to be modern-day libertarianism; placing an individual’s importance over that of a collective whole, allowing for maximum personal rights and liberties, adherence to free market values, and, last but most certainly not least, a peacenik approach to foreign policy. Obviously, this sounds completely different from the current incarnation of American liberalism, which, in a nutshell, tends to deal with people as members of groups, as opposed to free-thinking individuals, and which ranks the mindlessly altruistic concept of “social justice” far above that of citizens taking responsibility for their own actions, discards capitalism in favor of tired-and-failed regressive economic policies, and, of course, aggressively pursues a national security agenda which our enemies both at home and abroad cannot help but love.
How could this bastardization of liberalism possibly have ever occurred, you ask? To find the answer to that question, one must look back to the early 1930s, when the Great Depression was in full swing. Politicians opposed to the more radical aspects of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, virtually all of which were ruled unconstitutional soon after their implementation by the way, were smeared as being “conservatives” (Nonsensical traditionalist relics of a bygone era), and those who supported them heralded as “liberals” (Champions of freedom through taxing prosperous citizens into poverty). Unfortunately, the labels stuck, and, well, here we are. I must say that the left scored a stunning victory in snagging the “liberal” banner for its own purposes. After all, in its quintessence, liberalism means “liberty”, and who in their right mind would even consider being opposed to liberty, the very principle on which the United States was founded? Certainly not I, though, as all of my frequent readers must know by now, I am a staunch opponent of absolutely any leftist political agenda. History shows that they all end in horrid destruction, and, as a realist, who am I to argue with the facts?
Perhaps in time most will come to realize that post-Depression liberalism is not liberal in the least, but rather socialism, and more often than not, far worse wrapped up in patriotic garb. Despite what many would think, I do not consider myself to be a classical liberal by any means. No, as one of the last standing Rockefeller Republicans, I believe that legislation such as the Patriot Act and neoconservative stances on both warfare and international relations are essential to our well being as a nation. However, it simply would not be right for me to stand aside, abstaining from throwing my two cents into the well of public opinion as the left continues to pull perhaps the greatest fast one of all time on the vast majority of mainstream America.
How much longer can it possibly get away with this farce? Only time will tell.