Roger L. Simon: "Left in Form But Right in Essence"

When I was a young leftie, that was one of the popular accusations we made against "certain reactionary parties." I believe the phrase came from Mao's essay "On Contradiction," but it could have had an earlier provenance (Lenin?). Someone in the blogosphere will know. In any case, those words have been going through my mind lately, especially with regard to our so-called "liberal" politicians. You know the type - the ones who used to abhor that the US played footsie with likes of Pinochet and Somoza and wanted us to overthrow them. So did I, at the time, and still do. But it seems these supposed left-liberals have changed. The same ones who once called for the defenestration of fascists now favor entering into dialog with them.

Victor Davis Hanson gives us a good rundown of how this works today on his blog.

Does running for President allow a candidate to freelance at a time of war by talking to our enemies and triangulating against the president? Why is Gov. Richardson talking to North Koreans, or Sen. Kerry trying to talk to the Iranians, or Sen. Bayh to the Syrians? Wouldn't that be like a Tom DeLay talking to Milosevic to undermine Clinton during the Kosovo bombing? Or Trent Lott dealing with the Taliban as Clinton sent cruise missiles against them?

Sen. Kerry in Cairo just praised Hosni Mubarak, lauding him by chastising President Bush's failure to listen to this voice of reason and his criticisms of the United States. And why not listen to such advice, since this autocrat has been the recipient of billions in American aid, while squelching all reform for some thirty years in the bargain?

We are in the land of Animal Farm. Liberal is not liberal but something else. I don't know what to call it really. That's why I reached for the old "Left in form but right in essence." Some days I call it "liberalist," some days simply "reactionary." As noted on Pajamas, The New York Times is at the forefront of this non-liberal liberal thinking. We really do need a name for it. Fuddy-duddy? I've tried that. Not bad, but perhaps a tad colloquial for repetitive usage.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

When wasn''t the Left reactionary? It has been that way all my days. Notable features:

1)Substitution of passion for facts
2)Blindly following leaders
3)Valueing destruction over construction
4)Admiring such as Mao, Castro, Che, Ho Chih Minh
5)Bullshit philosophy (executive summary)
6)Anti science - from astrology to shamanism
7)No concept of human nature and history

What is new is that Liberals are now Left. Where once labour could claim a place, the Left is now mostly a middle and upperclass movement. You may have once been Left but I never was; it always struck me as a bizarre and destructive movement given to lies and strange superstitions. But even the Left's foundations have been undermined and little is left except a desire to oppose and an unwillingness to defend, or even espouse, classical Western values.

In the early sixties I wrote a short essay for an English class positing that the main lack of the modern age was a religion consonant with science. God is dead and all that. I see no reason to change my mind on that score. Many of the changes in the sixties struck me as folk casting about for new beliefs, I think they still are. The impetus that began with the Renaissance is running out, the Age of Enlightenment is over, and the herd is milling aimlessly.

These are people who in the most basic sense are shallow, unthinking, unknowing: frivolous.

And, they are uncaring of their country (which I might add pays them large sums of $$$ to represent the interests of American citizenry), to the point where they chat it up with their own nation's SELF DECLARED enemies: treacherous.

Not really. Kerry was not only not shot after meeting with the enemy in Paris, he became a US Senator and got to run for President.

They remind me of the America Firsters. Lindberg visiting Nazi Germany and blaming all the problems of the world on the Jews and the Brits and FDR.

I have always felt that extremes meet, go far enough left and you will bump into right.

That leaves a huge bunch of people in the middle. I read not long ago {sorry no link} that the largest self described group was now moderate, coming in at 47%. Liberal was only about 18%, and conservative was about 35%. I think the problem is that moderate has been defined as anyone who is not Pat Buchanan or Cindy Sheehan.

But the idea that Senators would meet with these people really is astonishing. Maybe not illegal, but bad form in the very least. Ofcourse they would tell you we are not at war with Iran and Syria so why shouldn't they do Bush's job for him? It is all about politics. It is unserious in the extreme. For people who thought that voting for Democrats was going to bring a change they have thus far seen that Democrats have no concrete ideas for victory in the war and in fact can not even agree as to whether there really is one.

Like Nancy Pelosi says, Iraq is a problem that needs to be solved. Just a problem. Like bad breath or lines around the eyes. A little nip and tuck and no one will have any idea how old you really are. Problem solved.

The leftism of earlier times was a bastard child of the Enlightenment. Present-day leftism is counter-Enlightenment--ie, reactionary. Consider, for example, attitudes toward science and technology. The leftists of the 1930s--from American New Dealers to Soviet Marxists--loved hydroelectric power plants and built them as fast as they could. Many of today's leftists want to blow up the dams we already have. And today it's among leftists, especially academic leftists, that there are flourishing beliefs in magical crystals, feng shui, etc.

Today's leftists are also particularly concerned with aesthitics, in unhealthy ways. Here's an interesting quote from Aldous Huxley:

"In the field of politics the equivalent of a theorem is a perfectly disciplined army; of a sonnet or picture, a police state under a dictatorship. The Marxist calls himself scientific and to this claim the Fascist adds another: he is the poet--the scientific poet--of a new mythology. Both are justified in their pretensions; for each applies to human situations the procedures which have proved effective in the laboratory and the ivory tower. They simplify, they abstract, they eliminate all that, for their purposes, is irrelevant and ignore whatever they choose to regard an inessential; they impose a style, they compel the facts to verify a favorite hypothesis, they consign to the waste paper basket all that, to their mind, falls short of perfection...the dream of Order begets tyranny, the dream of Beauty, monsters and violence."

I don't find this surprising in the least. The senators - mediocrities with no moral compass to speak of - are simply doing what comes natural: sidling up to the winning side; with the added filip of sticking it to - in their minds - the real enemy: Bush and the Republicans.

But really, all this would be a sideshow if Bush was a LEADER, determined to win in Iraq whatever the cost. At a time when we desperately need a leader there is none at the helm and none in sight. At best, Bush will limp to the finish line, with a no loss in Iraq. And then, if the country sleep walks into a Hillary presidency...well, the mind shudders.

"Gliberals," perhaps? Anyone who would take the word of these thugs is certainly "careless," if not precisely "insincere"...

The end of the cold war should have de-legitimized appeasement as a principled strategy in the arsenal furthering the interest of the US. If anything, appeasement (don't do anything upsetting to them and talk even if there is nothing to talk about) prolonged the cold war. Appeasement gives foes the appearance of weakness. If we are perceived to be weak we will be dealt with in those terms.

Moral relativism and situational ethics rule the Left. Many, without realizing it, embrace Sarte, God is dead. From there, unguided reason is embraced. At one time, "liberalism" had a set of guiding principles. Not today.

Okay, let's say you do not believe in God. At least where are Aristole's laws of coherency and consistency?

For example, let's take the value of human life. Many on the Left hold the views that execution by lethal injection is cruel and inhumane and partial birth abortion, where you saw off the top of a baby's head and suck out it's brains, is okay.

But when it comes to war against enemies who have DECLARED war on the USA, the Left wants to bring home our troops because their lives are in danger and they "value" the lives of our troops.

However, there is no recognition, or perhaps worse no realization, of the stated goal of America's destruction by our Islamic enemies.

There is no ability to connect the dots of 25 years of attacks against the US, including 9-11. There is no weight given to the words of the President of Iran about the destruction of Israel and America. The silence from Islamic leaders around the world and in America bellows danger.

We are lost in a soup of unguided, often well-intentioned, uninformed, incoherent talk from the Left. It is ultimately babble or noise.

There is no consistent or coherent leadership because the sand shifts from day to day and so do the positions. If you have no real convictions because you have no moral compass what does one fight for? Is anything worth dying for? I do not believe the Left has anything on this list.

Of course the Left is reactionary. It cannot be anything else. It can't lead without anything to guide it. It is ultimately self-indulgent. Chuck properly decribes it.

And Lem properly decribes the consequence. Appeasement is weakness and weakness is provocation.

Ronald Reagan, while running for president, sent his running mate George H. W. Bush to France for hushed negotiations with representatives for the Ayatollah Khomeini. While President Carter was trying to negotiate in good faith with an obstinate and posturing Khomeini, he was undercut by Bush using his many years of experience running the CIA to offer Khomeini a sweeter deal. The hostages were held until Carter was out of office. The day Reagan was inaugurated, the hostage were put on a plane and landed safely. Nobody seemed to think this unusual. Everyone was so overjoyed that no one thought to question it.

Ronald Reagan, while running for president, sent his running mate George H. W. Bush to France for hushed negotiations with representatives for the Ayatollah Khomeini.

You say that as if it is a known fact. Gary Sick, who seems to be the one responsible for this theory, also admits that there is no smoking gun. That is to say, it is speculation. Would Sick have any personal reasons to coming to this conclusion so many years after he left administration? What role did he himself play in the events? Mr. Sick was, after all, the Iran expert on the NSC at the time.

While President Carter was trying to negotiate in good faith with an obstinate and posturing Khomeini...

That seems an odd characterization of an affair that lasted 444 days. And what the H*ll does good faith mean in this context? Faith in what? Was Carter going to convert to Islam or something? Carter was rolled.

Unrealious, or what ever, you are so ignorant. I'll bet you think that turkey was plastic.

Anyway, the left lost its way when it found Castro good. Lousy medical system universal or not is still lousy and anyone who would hire a Cuban educated person anything other a villege idiot wants to fail.

1. The Iranians despised Carter. He was weak and incompetent and he was the current President of the Great Satan. And they released the hostages at that time to insult him further.

2. They were afraid Reagan would be ready to attack them very quickly after coming to power. Donï¿½t know if he would have but I think so. Ironically, it was the almost total dominance of the left in the media that painted Reagan as a warmonger that probably convinced them it was true. Lefties are good for something you know.

Anti-liberal left is how I see it. They are "anti-" more than they are just about anything else. And they are clearly not liberal. Clear, concise, and correct. I think it works.

Bush was enough of a leader to get us there. I think that blaming Bush is too easy and it is becoming the norm for right and left. If only Bush had done this or that all would be well.

I think Bush has done a pretty darn good job considering the kind of crap he has had to deal with.

Perhaps if the right had not gotten so bent out of shape over immigration and their own refusal to compromise and if the left were not so given to conspiracy theories the man might have had a better chance of pulling it together.

I am beginning to wonder if anyone could lead the country at this point. Oh, there might be a honeymoon period where one side refrains from calling the new guy elPresidente and bitching about government spending and the other side actually stops and considers the possibility that the real enemy is not the Republican in the White House or next door but some jihadi bent on killing people...but sooner or later all this stuff comes back unless and until people want to grow the hell up and be lead.

They're liberal in form, but Marxist in essence. Arnold Kling dubbed this condition "Folk Marxism":

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=012206D
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011806C

> Perhaps if the right had not gotten so bent out of shape over immigration and their own refusal to compromise

So now Bush is psychic. Bush got into trouble on immigration well after he'd gone soft on Iraq. (BTW - Bush never went to bat for conservatives, so why should they go to bat for him? He spent almost all of his political capital trying to appease Dems, who played him just like they played his dad.)

Bush had super-majority support when he was actually fighting in Iraq. He lost it when he started appeasing every two-bit thug with a bullhorn.

BTW, all I want for Christmas is for Dueling to be legalized again. It would really tighten up the acts of the slippery and mouthy.

"Ronald Reagan, while running for president, sent his running mate George H. W. Bush to France for hushed negotiations with representatives for the Ayatollah Khomeini."

I believe Unrealious has his facts wrong. I distinctly remember a scene (either immediately before or after the elections) on the TV where a reporter shoved a microphone in Ronald Reagan's face and said something like, "It's being said that the Ayatollah is waiting to negotiate with you after you take office to see if you will have a better offer". And Reagan, in his usual way, said (and I distinctly remember this), "Well, he sure is stupid". And kept on walking to the helicopter.
To me, it was classic and if anyone else saw it, I'd enjoy hearing from you. It was before the internet, otherwise it would have been all over the net.

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/12/kerry-and-democrats-back-to-their-old.html

In 1970, although he was still ostensibly an officer in the United States Navy, Jean-Francois Kerry took counsel with North Vietnamese officials in Paris, and returned to regale the Democrat-dominated Foreign Relations Committee with KGB-inspired lies about American War Crimes.

In 1985, Kerry took Tom Harkin on a junket to the Sandinista's Marxist-Leninist Nicaragua, where they tried to prop up Fidel Castro's Mini-Me of the time, Daniel Ortega.
Kerry is not alone; many Democrats have done similar things over the years:

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Ted Kennedy maintained high-level contacts with the KGB, and offered to help Soviet officials work against President Reagan.

In 1990, Dhimmi Carter sent a secret letter to the leaders of nations on the United Nations Security Council, urging them to vote against his own country. Brent Scowcroft wrote:

It seemed to me that if there was ever a violation of the Logan Act prohibiting diplomacy by private citizens, this was it. President Bush was furious at this interference in the conduct of his foreign policy and the deliberate attempt to undermine it, but told me just to let it drop.
In 2002, Democrats David Bonior and Jim McDermott took a trip to Baghdad to help Saddam Hussein retain his genocidal grip on power, allowing themselves to be used for propaganda.
And now the Dems are at it again:

They recently met with Hamas terrorists.
Consorting with the enemy. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy. At the very least, the Attorney General ought to be investigating them for violation of the Logan Act. Better yet, for treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

"Giving them Aid and Comfort ... " the way Jean-Francois Kerry and other Democrats hav been for years. Kerry has made a career of it. SO: Why aren't Kerry and the others being prosecuted?

Terrye, yes it's been illegal since 1799 (the Logan Act). Unfortunately, the law has not been enforced like it should be. Lack of will, fear of the press, whatever. I wish this (among other things) would be a campaign issue so we either start enforcing it or repeal it.

In 1985, Kerry took Tom Harkin on a junket to the Sandinista's Marxist-Leninist Nicaragua, where they tried to prop up Fidel Castro's Mini-Me of the time, Daniel Ortega

This item is long gone down the memory-hole, but folks interested in knowing Sen Kerry's true colors, and his effect on foreign policy (and Reagan II, via "Iran-Contra"), really should look into the history.

Keep the memory alive. The senator is still striding through our--and our children's--lives, so we should try to understand what he is really all about.

The left is not 'anti-science'. If anything, science is the left's religion, and they use it as a blunt instrument to beat the conservative/right over the head at every opportunity.

Certainly the left has problems (beginning perhaps with the fact that they deny even being the left). It doesn't help anyone's case, though, to push poorly-reasoned arguments - isn't that one of the things you're accusing them of?

Kipling had the Left down pat more than a century ago. In "The Jungle Book" story "Kaa's Hunting," the Monkey tribe, the "Bandar-log," are given to chanting "This is true; we all say so" and "There is no one in the jungle so wise and good and clever and strong and gentle as the Bandar-log." They are also given to enthusiasms and have no manners at all.

They are also given to enthusiasms, the expropriation of property for civic purposes and have no manners at all.

"We used to call them commies and traitors, and they used to be shot. - Sandy P"

I would certainly vote to resurect that tradition with a vengence! Its about time our treason & sedition laws were enforced rather than cleverly ignored.

I know about the Logan Act and if it was illegal for them to even be talking to people I doubt they would do it so blatantly. The idea is there has to be some intent to undermine the government and it is difficult to prove intent when these guys can always claim stupidity.

By the same token if Conservatives don't care about anyone else why should anyone else care about them?

And no, Bush did not lose support on the war because he was not killing enough people.

Mr. Snitch, I'd bet, if you looked, you'd find a very much stronger correaltion of Democratic party voting patterns, to the anti-science anti-globalist demographic, than to the secular pro-science technocrat demographic.

not to mention the strong correalation of sentences like the one I just wrote, to the darting, shape-shifting, approach of gibberish.

I admit Buddy, I did have to read it twice. But you are most likely correct I'm sure. BTW, I could not get myself to mess up on "yellow leather," though I did get some unusual looks from the better two-thirds :-)

I believe the term is Illiberal, as in.... only concerned with maintaining poverty, misery and despair in order to justify their need for slavery and serfdom to benefit innane emotionalism as in 'if Conservatives don't care about anyone else why should anyone care about them', which of course is a fallacy since the truth is Conservatives DO care they just don't appreciate the concept of creating a society of serfs who cannot think for themselves and are miserably attach to some mythical savior called Moderate.

Yes Buddy, very wrong. My internal dialog re optimist vs pessimist is in constant chatter. Do these folks think freedom just appeared out of the clear blue sky...have they never read chicken little? Actually have they ever read anything of substance? Rhetorical of course.

Well, first we need to stop calling them liberals. The Left has not been liberal in any meaningful sense for some time now.A Syn says above, Illiberal" is more accurate, though not very catchy.

Second, we need to stop calling them progressives, unless at the very least we always use scare quotes. There is nothing progressive about today's leftism, which is ossified and seeks only to rehash a tired mish mash of disproven theories and old, discredited ideas. Leftism today is a mix of ill-understood, cocktail party reflexive Marxism, therapy culture, New Age romanticism and earth worship revival. These are not progressive ideas, they are regressive.

That's why I call leftists "Regressives." As in, "I oppose the proposals of the Democratic Party, and the entire Regressive agenda.

Pretty good, FreeTotem. I would just add Static, as in not being able to move beyond...oh, let's say 1870 or so. Still looking for the big dream, the moment that will validate them. Never mind the 100 million+ deaths. The goal is the ideal, the ideal is the goal, regardless of the carnage in between. All is all. Reminds me of those who would have us live in the seventh century.

So far, my favorite--aesthetically & utilitywise--is "regressive". But there are other problems. Why do conservative areas have to be "RED" for cryin out loud? 'Red', like the communist flag and Hugo's stretched-out shirts. And Washington, the state and DC, why not just have the one? The state could be renamed, they wouldn't mind that much. And why two Dakotas? And why the two Virginias (tho that's only half the Dakota problem). And lead, lead, and lead bug me, too. And read and read.

"The idea is there has to be some intent to undermine the government and it is difficult to prove intent when these guys can always claim stupidity."

December 16, 2006: "Left in Form But Right in Essence"

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post