November 5, 2015
Liberals: Not Loyal to Anything
A new report
from Pew Research confirms what most of us have known all along:
Democrats tend to have no religious affiliation (28%, to be exact).
Among the other 72%, only 16% are evangelical Protestants (versus 38%
for Republicans). Large numbers belong to liberal "universalist"
churches and non-Christian groups, including black Muslims.
The
Pew "Religious Landscape Study" reveals a lot about liberals in
America. In increasing numbers, they are rejecting Christianity.
Millions are self-professed atheists or agnostics. Politically, they
identify as socialists, a fact that underlies the appeal of socialist
candidate Bernie Sanders. Vast numbers of Democrats have relinquished
their faith in God and, at the same time, in capitalism, both of which
are at the heart of American identity.
This
loss of faith in American values, if it continues, has dire
implications for the future of our country. In essence, religious faith
amounts to faith in the benevolence and purposefulness of creation.
Once a nation loses this faith, its people become cynical and
demoralized. Economic and cultural decline is the inevitable result, as
seen in every communist regime. The Soviet Union failed because its
people lost faith in the goodness of life. Cuba is impoverished because
its people have no free-market incentives to work.
Liberals
like to think they are "above" those ordinary Americans who "cling to
their guns or religion," as President Obama put it. They believe in
universalism, social justice, and saving the Earth. These "beliefs,"
however, are not the same thing as religion. They are a rejection of
religious faith, and they are intended to undermine the competitive
instinct at the heart of capitalism.
For
example, the belief in universalism – the idea that one's own nation is
no more exceptional than any other, and that all cultures are equally
viable – is by definition a rejection of faith in the superiority of
one's own country. Liberals do not "believe in" America. They believe
in "humanity," and they believe that world government, supported by
world courts, international armies, and global economic arbitration,
should govern all nations, including their own. To the liberal mind,
Obama's failure to assert American power on the global stage is a
virtue. It is a perfect expression of a key tenet of liberal beliefs.
This
is why Obama and Clinton have scorned our allies while showing
themselves willing to engage with our deadliest enemies. From the
liberal point of view, there is no such thing as an ally or an enemy.
The particular loyalty of the USA to its traditional allies – Britain,
Canada, Australia, and more recently Germany and Japan – means nothing
to the liberal mind. One is just as willing to "reset" with Russia,
kibbutz with Kim, or engage with Castro.
Hillary
Clinton's part in the Arab Spring is a case in point. Hillary was
cheerleader-in-chief in bringing about the fall of pro-American regimes
in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Libya, and in promoting the
destabilization of pro-American regimes in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
Just as Jimmy Carter helped to bring about the fall of the shah of Iran
and thus the rise of Islamic extremism in Iran, Hillary's rash foreign
policy has brought about the rise of ISIS across the Middle East. As a
consequence of the chaos in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Egypt,
millions of lives have been lost.
Had
the pro-American strongmen been left in power in these and other
countries, order would have been maintained. But Hillary was too
high-minded to think she should remain loyal to our allies, however
unsavory some of them may have been. She wanted to bring about a
perfect world, a utopia with no favorites, no loyalties, no strongmen,
no use of force.
It's Jeane Kirkpatrick's "Dictators and Double Standards"
all over again. That masterful essay has been around for 40 years, but
liberals never got around to reading it. Had they done so, the Arab
Spring would have been suppressed from the start, with U.S. assistance,
and ISIS would never have gained footing in the region.
It's
not just foreign policy. Liberals are willing to throw their own
country under the bus just as much economically as in terms of national
security. Like Obama, Hillary opposes restraints on immigration and
supports bringing hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees to our
shores. She supposes that we are all just one people – human beings,
not Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or any other particular religion,
not Westerners with a firm sense of democracy as opposed to Middle
Easterners who have never known anything but tyranny. She thinks that
once those hundreds of thousands of Islamic refugees make it to our
shores, they will enroll their kids in Y soccer and sign up for
multifaith picnics with their Christian and Jewish neighbors. All will
be kumbaya. No worries.
Likewise,
liberals believe that social justice trumps capitalism. But again, the
liberal belief in equality amounts to a rejection of a fundamental
pillar of Western civilization: the belief in individual
self-responsibility and the freedom to pursue opportunity in a free
market. Social justice, with its goal of universal equality, is a
rejection of economic liberty. To achieve equality, liberals such as
Ms. Clinton always return to the same proposition: increased taxation
and redistribution of capital.
Social
justice is not a benign form of liberation; it is a cynical theft of
assets that are the product of hard work on the part of others. There
is nothing noble, or even remotely righteous, about the belief in social
justice. From a political point of view, those who demand enforced
equality, as Hillary Clinton has just done with her $12 minimum wage
proposal, are simply buying the votes of the poor in the most cynical
manner. Redistributionist schemes in America are no less cynical than
in Peronist Argentina, Chavez's Venezuela, or any other failed socialist
state.
Surprisingly,
those same liberals who support universal equality are among the
stingiest when it comes to charitable giving. It seems they are ardent
supporters of social justice in the abstract, but they are less likely to contribute to their churches or local communities than are conservatives.
The reason for this lack of charitable giving, I believe, is that liberals have no particular faith
in anything. They believe in "the environment," but what is that? It
is something far away, diffuse, distant in time and place. Global
warming cannot be seen or felt. "Climate change" is a mantra, a magic
potion, a cult-like incantation. It is the opposite of one particular
gardener's affection for one particular planting of hydrangeas, or the
touching concern of a pet owner's feelings for her aging black lab.
Just as universalism is the opposite of patriotism, and income equality
is the opposite of faith in education and hard work.
In
their faithlessness, liberals are on the wrong side of history.
America is going to survive and prosper, and it will do so because the
vast majority of Americans are conservative by nature. Americans
believe in the goodness of life; they believe that the pursuit of
happiness is a fundamental right; they love their families and their
country, and they believe that both are exceptional and deserving of
their special loyalty.
For
their part, liberals believe in nothing other than abstractions like
universalism, social justice, and the environment. No great
civilization has ever prospered by believing that it is just average or
that it should redistribute the results of its success to those who are
too weak or too corrupt to achieve anything. Democrats may well
continue on their faithless way, but America, I believe, will not be
joining them.
Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).
from Pew Research confirms what most of us have known all along:
Democrats tend to have no religious affiliation (28%, to be exact).
Among the other 72%, only 16% are evangelical Protestants (versus 38%
for Republicans). Large numbers belong to liberal "universalist"
churches and non-Christian groups, including black Muslims.
The
Pew "Religious Landscape Study" reveals a lot about liberals in
America. In increasing numbers, they are rejecting Christianity.
Millions are self-professed atheists or agnostics. Politically, they
identify as socialists, a fact that underlies the appeal of socialist
candidate Bernie Sanders. Vast numbers of Democrats have relinquished
their faith in God and, at the same time, in capitalism, both of which
are at the heart of American identity.
This
loss of faith in American values, if it continues, has dire
implications for the future of our country. In essence, religious faith
amounts to faith in the benevolence and purposefulness of creation.
Once a nation loses this faith, its people become cynical and
demoralized. Economic and cultural decline is the inevitable result, as
seen in every communist regime. The Soviet Union failed because its
people lost faith in the goodness of life. Cuba is impoverished because
its people have no free-market incentives to work.
Liberals
like to think they are "above" those ordinary Americans who "cling to
their guns or religion," as President Obama put it. They believe in
universalism, social justice, and saving the Earth. These "beliefs,"
however, are not the same thing as religion. They are a rejection of
religious faith, and they are intended to undermine the competitive
instinct at the heart of capitalism.
For
example, the belief in universalism – the idea that one's own nation is
no more exceptional than any other, and that all cultures are equally
viable – is by definition a rejection of faith in the superiority of
one's own country. Liberals do not "believe in" America. They believe
in "humanity," and they believe that world government, supported by
world courts, international armies, and global economic arbitration,
should govern all nations, including their own. To the liberal mind,
Obama's failure to assert American power on the global stage is a
virtue. It is a perfect expression of a key tenet of liberal beliefs.
This
is why Obama and Clinton have scorned our allies while showing
themselves willing to engage with our deadliest enemies. From the
liberal point of view, there is no such thing as an ally or an enemy.
The particular loyalty of the USA to its traditional allies – Britain,
Canada, Australia, and more recently Germany and Japan – means nothing
to the liberal mind. One is just as willing to "reset" with Russia,
kibbutz with Kim, or engage with Castro.
Hillary
Clinton's part in the Arab Spring is a case in point. Hillary was
cheerleader-in-chief in bringing about the fall of pro-American regimes
in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Libya, and in promoting the
destabilization of pro-American regimes in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
Just as Jimmy Carter helped to bring about the fall of the shah of Iran
and thus the rise of Islamic extremism in Iran, Hillary's rash foreign
policy has brought about the rise of ISIS across the Middle East. As a
consequence of the chaos in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Egypt,
millions of lives have been lost.
Had
the pro-American strongmen been left in power in these and other
countries, order would have been maintained. But Hillary was too
high-minded to think she should remain loyal to our allies, however
unsavory some of them may have been. She wanted to bring about a
perfect world, a utopia with no favorites, no loyalties, no strongmen,
no use of force.
It's Jeane Kirkpatrick's "Dictators and Double Standards"
all over again. That masterful essay has been around for 40 years, but
liberals never got around to reading it. Had they done so, the Arab
Spring would have been suppressed from the start, with U.S. assistance,
and ISIS would never have gained footing in the region.
It's
not just foreign policy. Liberals are willing to throw their own
country under the bus just as much economically as in terms of national
security. Like Obama, Hillary opposes restraints on immigration and
supports bringing hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees to our
shores. She supposes that we are all just one people – human beings,
not Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or any other particular religion,
not Westerners with a firm sense of democracy as opposed to Middle
Easterners who have never known anything but tyranny. She thinks that
once those hundreds of thousands of Islamic refugees make it to our
shores, they will enroll their kids in Y soccer and sign up for
multifaith picnics with their Christian and Jewish neighbors. All will
be kumbaya. No worries.
Likewise,
liberals believe that social justice trumps capitalism. But again, the
liberal belief in equality amounts to a rejection of a fundamental
pillar of Western civilization: the belief in individual
self-responsibility and the freedom to pursue opportunity in a free
market. Social justice, with its goal of universal equality, is a
rejection of economic liberty. To achieve equality, liberals such as
Ms. Clinton always return to the same proposition: increased taxation
and redistribution of capital.
Social
justice is not a benign form of liberation; it is a cynical theft of
assets that are the product of hard work on the part of others. There
is nothing noble, or even remotely righteous, about the belief in social
justice. From a political point of view, those who demand enforced
equality, as Hillary Clinton has just done with her $12 minimum wage
proposal, are simply buying the votes of the poor in the most cynical
manner. Redistributionist schemes in America are no less cynical than
in Peronist Argentina, Chavez's Venezuela, or any other failed socialist
state.
Surprisingly,
those same liberals who support universal equality are among the
stingiest when it comes to charitable giving. It seems they are ardent
supporters of social justice in the abstract, but they are less likely to contribute to their churches or local communities than are conservatives.
The reason for this lack of charitable giving, I believe, is that liberals have no particular faith
in anything. They believe in "the environment," but what is that? It
is something far away, diffuse, distant in time and place. Global
warming cannot be seen or felt. "Climate change" is a mantra, a magic
potion, a cult-like incantation. It is the opposite of one particular
gardener's affection for one particular planting of hydrangeas, or the
touching concern of a pet owner's feelings for her aging black lab.
Just as universalism is the opposite of patriotism, and income equality
is the opposite of faith in education and hard work.
In
their faithlessness, liberals are on the wrong side of history.
America is going to survive and prosper, and it will do so because the
vast majority of Americans are conservative by nature. Americans
believe in the goodness of life; they believe that the pursuit of
happiness is a fundamental right; they love their families and their
country, and they believe that both are exceptional and deserving of
their special loyalty.
For
their part, liberals believe in nothing other than abstractions like
universalism, social justice, and the environment. No great
civilization has ever prospered by believing that it is just average or
that it should redistribute the results of its success to those who are
too weak or too corrupt to achieve anything. Democrats may well
continue on their faithless way, but America, I believe, will not be
joining them.
Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment