Extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay…have no place in the State of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are. – Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York
New York City Mayor de Blasio agrees with Governor Cuomo that conservatives should leave the state. – News item
People continue to leave California. – News item
Gun maker Weatherby and knife maker Buck leave California because of anti-gun, anti-knife laws – News item
The only reason people own guns is that they want to kill blacks. – Former colleague of mine (Unable to explain why blacks own guns)
Fox News is the enemy. – Former friend of mine (Terrorists? What terrorists?)
Rush Limbaugh is a fascist. – Former colleague of mine (Unable to give one example)
We can’t have dinner with Nazis anymore. – Former friend of mine (Referring to my political views)
You’re a Nazi, and people like you put Hitler into power. – Former colleague of mine (Referring to my political views)
As I recall the schoolyards of my childhood, there were four kinds of kids – bullies, victims of bullies, the few who fought bullies, and the rest of us who tried to stay away from bullies but sometimes secretly envied them. I believe an admiration for bullies is a major part of modern liberalism.
Before the 1960s, liberals stood for limited government and individual freedom. We now call them classical liberals, to distinguish them from post-1960s liberals – who stand for big government, high taxes, and ever-shrinking individual freedom.
Consider the vast number of government programs that have been instituted since 1960, versus the minute number that have been ended. Consider the host of laws and regulations that have been enacted, versus the tiny number that have been repealed.
Why is it that those who call themselves liberals love big government? Could there be psychological reasons as well as political ones?
A characteristic of what passes for liberalism today is an inability to confront evil. This is true especially for communism. But at least there is the excuse that communism is considered part of the Left, as is liberalism, and it is difficult to criticize members of one’s own group. Yes, it is difficult, but it is also a mark of a person of integrity that he can criticize his own when they deserve it.
But what of other dangerous movements? What of other groups that threaten violence to those who disagree with them? What explanation is there for the tolerance shown by those who call themselves liberals?
For a few, the cause may be the Stockholm syndrome, where one identifies with enemies who threaten him. For others, there may be self-hatred: “I’m no good, and I’m American, so America must be no good, and those who hate America must be right.” “Taliban” John Walker Lindh and “Al Qaeda” Adam Gadahn may fall into one or both of these categories. But these examples of psychopathology are probably uncommon.
Cowardice is a more likely cause. As Churchill said, when we are confronted by a crocodile, there is a temptation to feed it, in the hope that it will eat us last. Before World War II, the British and French tried to satiate Hitler by feeding him Czechoslovakia. But Hitler’s appetite was whetted, and he proceeded to ingest most of Europe before he was stopped.
Feeding crocodiles can be a risky business. Offer them a meal and they may get the idea that you are on the menu. They see the offer as a sign of weakness.
Related to cowardice is nonviolence. Ostensibly a noble quality, it easily degenerates into a cold indifference to the suffering of one’s neighbors. Some people are truly nonviolent. They live peaceful lives and have peaceful thoughts. If everyone were like them, the world would be a peaceful place. Regrettably, such people are in the minority.
On the contrary, some people who claim to be nonviolent may actually have violent fantasies. But they repress these thoughts and live vicariously through the violence of others. They are nonviolent not because they believe it is wrong to be violent, but merely because they are afraid to be.
During the Vietnam War they wore Ho Chi Minh T-shirts. They still wear Ché Guevara T-shirts. Partly this is due to hatred of America. But also there may be genuine admiration for these apostles of violence and mass murder.
Liberals favor dictatorships over democracies abroad, and criminals over victims at home. This may be why so many on the Left favor the Chinese regime over the Tibetans, the Palestinians over the Israelis, and the Castros over democratic Cubans.
Liberals’ sympathy is used up on criminals; none is left for victims. They agonize over the tiny possibility that an innocent person may be executed. But they are unmoved by the certainty that imprisoned murderers may kill guards or other prisoners, or may be released or escape and kill citizens. This happens so often that it is hardly news.
Surely liberals’ exaggerated concern for criminals should raise a suspicion that they empathize with criminals. For people who are supposedly sophisticated and familiar with psychology, they are surprisingly unaware of the implications of their views.
They want to disarm law-abiding citizens in the hope that, eventually, fewer guns will be available to criminals. But they oppose laws requiring the jailing of armed criminals. To them, the former is “gun control,” but oddly, the latter isn’t. Why?
Why does disarming law-abiding citizens rank so high on liberals’ agenda? Is it merely because they find weapons repulsive? Or do they fear that others share their own repressed desire to kill those who disagree with them? They don’t trust their fellow citizens – is this a projection of their own fear that they are not to be trusted?
Of course, armed citizens are hard to bully – by criminals, by terrorists, or by governments. Arming citizens disempowers bullies, which is why liberals oppose it. They subconsciously identify with the bullies, not with the citizens. And these are the people who claim to represent the “weak.”
Liberals tend to favor state government over local, national over state, and world government over national. As with all bullies, the biggest one rules. And these are the people who claim to be for the “little guy.”
Many liberals (not all) rationalize the cultural genocide of Tibet by claiming that China is “more advanced” and entitled to teach the “backward” Tibetans “modern” methods. And these are the people who claim to believe in “multiculturalism.”
They rationalize the Castros’ 61 years of dictatorial rule over Cuba by noting that Fidel kicked out Batista. So what? John Gotti became a mafia boss by killing his predecessor Paul Castellano, who was not a nice guy. Did that justify Gotti’s crimes?
Liberals can rationalize nearly anything, no matter how brutal, so long as the tyrants are anti-American, and especially if the regimes call themselves “people’s democracies” – as if a name could wash away the brutality.
Perhaps some liberals subconsciously want to kill those who disagree with them. Perhaps that is why they often call political opponents “Nazis,” “fascists,” or “Klansmen.” Perhaps they assume their opponents want to do to them what they want to do to their opponents.
They profess to admire the “working class,” but in fact they look hold it in contempt and believe they are entitled to rule over it. Lenin, their idol, called peasants “cattle.” What do we do with cattle? We herd them and milk them. And when they have no more milk to give, we send them to the slaughterhouse. (“Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.” – President Barack Obama.)
Liberals gloss over the brutal suppression of religious dissidents in China – and fantasize what they would like to do to the “religious Right” here.
They shrug off the 15,000 Cuban dissidents killed and the 100,000 jailed by the Castros. When I pointed this out to a liberal colleague, he quoted Lenin: “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” Yes, but why have so many eggs been broken, and so few omelets been made? It is past time to fire the chef.
Intolerance masquerading as tolerance really makes me sick, and I believe it has the same effect on Lady Liberty.
•
Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com