A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

I’m liberal. I’m not ashamed to say it. In fact, I’m proud of it.

Wikipedia defines liberalism as:

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.[1]

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term “liberal” and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for political liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual’s right to private property,[2] and a transparent system of government.[3][4][5] All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[6]

According to author and philosophy professor Peter Vallentyne, “Liberalism comes in two broad forms. Classical liberalism emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and contemporary (or welfare) liberalism tends to emphasize some kind of material equality.”[7] In Europe, the term “liberalism” is closer to the economic outlook of American economic conservatives. According to Harry Girvetz and Minoque Kenneth “contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook”.[8] In the United States, “liberalism” is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest. A philosophy holding a position in accordance with Scottish pioneer of political economy Adam Smith, that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or an invisible hand that benefits the society, is referred to as “classical liberalism.”[9], of which US-style libertarianism may be considered an extreme example.

Liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism.[10][11][12] Instead, it founds itself on the assumption of the equal dignity and worth of individuals.

By that standard, this is a liberal blog. I’d say we’re pretty obsessed with equality of opportunity and a transparent system of Government around here.

Wikipedia defines Progressivism as

Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.

In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.[1]

Ideologically, that makes me and this blog a Progressive blog. And ideologically, therefore, I am a Classical Liberal Progressive (or a “Moderate Liberal”), if you want to get down to the nitty gritty technical term of liberalisticims.

But I am not, in fact, a Progressive by identity. I am a liberal. Because in today’s American Political Culture, being a “Progressive” makes you a Right Wing Fundie in liberal drag. Sad, but true.

Liberals have been demonized for quite a while in this country. I’d say it probably started with the Reagan Era, when Religious zealots and Conservative Southern Democrats took over the Republican Party. Around that time, a lot of wealthy and privileged former self described College “Liberals” moved to the Republican Party, declaring themselves “Conservatives.” Publicly, they took up the cause of Militarism and Religious Fundamentalism, but privately they were hypocrites, and their activities are well-documented in one of my favorite books, Blinded By the Right, by David Brock (I quote it often).

Hillary Clinton called their politics of personal destruction political activism “A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.” She was mocked for it in the media, but she wasn’t wrong. Ever since Nixon’s Resignation, these kooks had been using corporate sugar daddies like Richard Mellon Scaife to fund their agenda in the media and in interest groups.

Old farts like Pat Robertson and James Dobson and Newt Gingrich come to mind, but they weren’t the only tools involved in the process. Jokers like Andrew Sullivan, Ariana Huffington, and Chris Matthews cheered for some of the worse disasters of my Generation: CDS and the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the election of George W. Bush, and the War in Iraq. And they did it all under the guise of their Gung Ho “Conservatism.”

Then, around the time of the mid term elections in 2006, they had a Come-to-Jesus moment and left the Republican Party, hilariously declaring themselves icons of the “New Left,” and by extension liberalism itself. Most of them had gotten their starts by smearing the Clintons, whom they declared were Republicans in drag. Sadly, the irony was lost on them and their projection continued. And even worse, they gained an audience. They and their followers coined themselves “The Progressive Movement.”

It wasn’t long until “The Progressive Movement” began cheering for their new standard bearer, Barack Obama. Again, the irony was lost on their audience. These imbeciles had spent the past two decades decrying all things liberal and good, why would anyone vote for the candidate they were peddling on places like Politico, the Huffington Post, and Daily Kos?

Well, I’m not like a lot of people. I don’t actually think Americans are stupid. Hillary won the popular vote. But the damage is still done. We have Bush the Third as our POTUS.

Today, these “Progressives”- Right Wing Fundies in liberal drag- and their allies in the media do the same thing to Sarah Palin and her family that they did to Bill Clinton and his family. The tactics are exactly the same. They slander her, spread rumors about her, and attack her and her children in the most gratuitous and revolting ways imaginable. They accuse her and they accused Bill Clinton of doing and being exactly what they are- power hungry, morally depraved, and ruthless- capable of doing and saying anything to obtain their victories.

I don’t believe in coincidences, and neither should you. The media is neither “liberal” nor “conservative.”  The media is corporate. Since the emergence of a twenty four hour news cycle, they’ve depended on their sponsors and their ratings for profit, and don’t you know? Follow the money! You just have to watch CNN for one day to understand.  The graphics in Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room are eerily similar to the graphics from Obama’s campaign and the DNC and RNC.  A panel of all-male, white reporters will solemnly declare that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are just whining- the Political coverage of them isn’t sexist and they are just trying to score political points with women. Then they go on a break and in the first commercial a woman is debating a Swiffer mop. A special about Al Gore’s Global Warming Documentary is solemnly discussed and Al Gore’s credibility is questioned with deep concern. Then they disappear and the screen explains, “This program has been sponsored by GM and Chrystler Motors.”

And again, the irony is lost on the audience.

Hillary’s famous “Right Wing Conspiracy” disguised as a Left Wing Conspiracy isn’t gone. It’s been with us this whole time, mouth breathing down our necks and leering at us like a bothersome lover.

And it’s rick rolled us once again.

Advertisements

2 Responses

  1. 2008 taught me that “Progressive” is a euphemism for smart ass know-it-alls jazzed on the adrenelin of politics, Unfamiliar with the reality that their approach is classic mob behavior. They are entitled by birth to whatever it is they want.

    Those who claim the ‘progressive’ label decry corruption, back room deals and party boss politics. The line jumping slugs are little more than yammering mouths and typing fingers with no attachment to principle or consistency. For folks who haven’t earned their political wisdom, they are unbelieveably arrogant. When you consider that the “progressive” candidate they pushed has obscured any records by which his character might be evaluated, is a mere academic with academic friends and precious few legitimate political associates. Thugs? Pretty much all of them. Reactionary bigots of the first stripe, snap at every bait, rise to every bell, far more interested in fighting than producing. At the end of the day, they’ve moved the goal posts to declare themselves having achieved their objectives. They have no true friends, because they use ’em and lose ’em. Their guy had a good rookie year. His Sophomore season ain’t going so well. But he’s still a star because they say so.

  2. It is nice that you provided the two definitions of liberalism, classical and modern. The two are very opposite today. One cannot support the classical version, with its main postulate of limited government, and support the modern version as well. Classical liberalism emphasizes the decentralization of government. (Notice I did not say “elimination” of government.) Giving more power to smaller groups gives each individual’s voice a greater chance of being heard and considered. This is a key concept. Modern liberalism is moving towards more centralization of government power and control. This tends to crush liberties.

    Think of going out to dinner. If it is just you, you choose the exact place you want. If you are with a friend, you both discuss and choose a place you are both happy with. Now think of a group of 5, 50, or even 5000. How do you choose the place? With increasing numbers in the group, you are less able to guide the group to the place most suited to your tastes and needs. If it turns out to be a place you like, you are lucky. It could be a place you detest, or one you are ambivalent about. Maybe you can’t afford it–maybe you allergic to the food?

    Now substitute government policy for restaurant choice. See where this is going? Less federal and more local control means individuals are more likely to get what they need and desire. This is what classical liberals support: decentralization.

    Also, social and economic liberties cannot be separated. What is economics, after all? It is about production, consumption (and transfer) of wealth–these are social interactions, after all. What was the restaurant example? It involved perhaps both economic (cost, need, time required) and social (ambiance, taste, desire) considerations–the two cannot be separated in this case.

    Also, FDR is very much propagandized these days, and I would encourage people to be careful about what group they lump him into these days. He originally campaigned on a platform of reduced government spending on which he won office. He then went on to expand government programs at a rate never before seen in history. His presided over confiscation of private property (gold), destruction of private property (agriculture: livestock, oranges, grains) to attempt to control prices (while people were starving), and his agriculture secretary wanted to restrict ownership of farmland. Please tell me where in there you see a supporter of private property rights and limited government? FDR had experienced a string of business failures in the 20’s (the “roaring” 20’s) before becoming president and his VP, Henry Wallace, who had previously published a successful newspaper in Iowa said of FDR “I reached the conclusion that I would under no circumstances, ever have any business dealings with him.” (I guess government control over economic policy was different, lol.) There is an excellent book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal by Dr. Robert P. Murphy that is full of quotes and historical facts not otherwise well known regarding this whole time period.

    The New Deal did not end the Great Depression and unemployment remained in the double digits that whole time. The war did not end it, either. It was the reallocation of resources and Americans’ productivity that ended it after the war. (If you would like to read a great little explanation of the fallacy of war solving economic problems, read this piece on The Broken Window Fallacy: http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm The book it’s from is highly recommended!)

    We are in the midst of a great amount of politicization of ideas and policies. The bigger the crisis, the greater the bs, I guess. Kudos to you, Little Isis, for seeking to delineate your ideologies and take your stands.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: