An Intelligent Citizen’s Guide to Modern American Liberalism

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 February 14, 2017|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As a child I marveled at the incredible beauty on display at the Miss America Pageant. But my father cautioned me with the admonition: “Beauty is as beauty does.” Similarly, the true test of moral virtue is not opinions or passions, but actions.

That old-fashioned wisdom comes to mind as the nation is convulsed by the preening moral righteousness of Americans who are unhappy with the electoral success of the Republican Party, and of Donald Trump, in particular. What is most telling, of course, is the hypocrisy in the profession of compassion, tolerance and even love by persons filled with callousness, intolerance and hatred.

In George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, an all-powerful government ruled so comprehensively that its subjects were compelled not only to utter what they were commanded but even to accept complete falsehood, as in the regime’s slogans: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

In order to bring the recalcitrant Winston to heel, an Oceana official holds up four fingers and demands that his captive say that there are five. Those who inhabit the modern totalitarian state must not only say what they are told, they must even believe the lies.

Fortunately, the actual year 1984 passed without our nation becoming a tyranny, but as Alexis de Tocqueville warned in his classic Democracy in America, public opinion can be as tyrannical as the government. Today, angry mobs in our nation’s largest cities (a.k.a., “sanctuary cities”) form in the streets intimidating their fellow citizens with mindless chants and with the object of overturning the recently recorded consent of the governed.

Millions of heretofore trusting citizens have not failed to notice that the behavior of these mobs is the polar opposite of what they say is their objective. They profess to care about the poor, racial minorities and “undocumented” (illegal) immigrants. In fact they are endorsing a party line which treats these classes of people as cannon fodder for their ruthless campaign against our Constitution and laws. Anyone in those sainted groups who dares to dissent is cast off with even more contempt than those in the hated middle-class, whites, or the legal majority.

More than any other term, “tolerance” is professed by the unhappy electoral losers. But there are two difficulties. First, they show precious little tolerance for anyone who disagrees with them. Scandalous incidents recently at the University of California at Berkeley and Columbia University, in which howling mobs made it practically impossible for invited conservatives to speak, though hardly atypical, demonstrate just how “tolerant” they are.

Second, as much as we deplore the intolerance of those who profess tolerance, let us admit that even in a free republic like ours, not everything can be tolerated. Neither mob rule nor the “politically correct” tyranny that has gripped many people in all facets of our national life are tolerable. As we affirm the constitutional status and real virtue of freedom of speech, so we must condemn all efforts, whether overt of covert, to suppress our public discussion.

So it is for compassion and love. We have a right to know whether professions of these attributes or feelings are well directed. We must have compassion for real victims of oppression, not for their oppressors. We love those close to us, but we cannot actually love an abstraction such as “all of humanity” or even major portions of it.

What is needed most of all, and which alone can direct our moral sentiments, is prudence. Those who admire tyrants like Fidel Castro are neither compassionate nor loving but betray a desire to emulate the unlamented Cuban caudillo. Equally, those who are indifferent to the plight of those subjected to tyranny are lacking in real virtue.

The question in our politics should not be whether we are tolerant, but what in fact we should tolerate. When I was a young man presumably sane people actually said that it didn’t matter if someone is a communist because one’s political views are protected by the Constitution. That was nonsense because our Constitution is dedicated to protecting human liberty, not slavery. It does not obligate us to commit political suicide.

Today the descendants of those tolerant of communism now proclaim that we must be tolerant of even the most extreme adherents of a religion interpretation which treats women and homosexuals not with love but with unbridled cruelty and which is committed, in principle, to an undermining of our laws and institutions. So as not to give offense to the millions of Muslims who have shied away from violence, progressives refuse to admit the truth about Islamic terrorism.

The true test of tolerance is not what unprincipled people proclaim their willingness to accept but what is compatible with human freedom. America has done more than any other nation to discredit and defeat everything from absolute monarchy to Soviet communism. It should continue in this great tradition by ridding the world of radical political Islam.

The longer term goal is to dispatch the false doctrine that teaches its minions to hate and defy the Constitution and to seek allies among America’s enemies.

About the Author:

Richard Reeb
Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy, and journalism at Barstow Community College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of "Taking Journalism Seriously: 'Objectivity' as a Partisan Cause" (University Press of America, 1999). Contact him at [email protected]
  • msher_1

    Ok, the longer term goal is to dispatch the false doctrine. HOW? What is the point of the hundreds of articles now being written about why we must win or even merely that we must win? Yeah, we know. So specifically what actions should we take? I have my own ideas and they are geared toward the practical need to get the right people defeated from office and the right ones elected. If the left can organize boycotts, so can we. If the left can demonstrate to show opposition we can demonstrate too – in opposition against the left (including Establishment members of the UniParty. I might be thinking of John McCain, for example.) And we can demonstrate in support of those we support. We can donate to the right organizations and candidates and we can volunteer our time. Etc., etc., etc. We are now in a civil war and be can be participants for our side.

    Other people may have other ideas. But the effort now must be practical real world action. Articles such as this tell us nothing useful and are a waste of time to write or read. Sorry, professor, time to come out of your ivory tower where all is talk into the real world where action is required.

    • Senhorbotero

      You are absolutely correct. I keep waiting for a response from our side, once again we remain like dead ducks.

    • AEJ

      For those of us that are ‘already there’ there are articles proposing specific actions. But there are folks who aren’t already ‘here with us’ but are open to hearing antiLeft’snarrative and can be persuaded with strong argument and even common sense. Pieces like the Prof’s here fit the bill. Those ‘already there’ aren’t the only ones coming into the Reading Room at AG, so I think these sorts of pieces have value.

      Can also print them out and hand them out to the relatives at those contentious Holiday gatherings…