Awhile back I heard a commentator make the statement that Liberalism is a mental illness. At the time, I found it a humorous reference and got a good laugh from it thinking nothing more of it at the moment.
But the thought apparently took root in my mind because the idea continued to recur regularly as time passed.
I contemplated much of what I have come to know of Liberals and the political philosophy they embrace as well as what I know of mental illness, however little that might be. As these thoughts developed, the original assertion lost its humor as I began to perceive that there may be more than humor in this seemingly cutesy little assertion.
From my limited knowledge of mental illness, it is a condition that varies in degrees from virtually non-existent to such severe instances as to require perpetual behavior modification by medication, physical restraint or both. The resulting impact on the victim is basically from the hardly noticeable to a fully psychotic individual who must be restrained or medicated for their own protection as well as the safety of others.
I recall a lecture I heard while attending a Navy Leadership and Management Training course; the topic according to the lecturer was Mental Hygiene. The lecturer (Dr. Murray Banks) presented a humorous yet memorable description of some basic mental health conditions. His statement was: “The Neurotic is a person who builds dream castles in the air, the Psychotic is the one who moves in, and the Psychiatrist collects the rent.”
However simplistic this definition might be, it does provide an insight into the degrees or range of mental health afflictions.
My perceptions, observations and thoughts apply to those who function with apparent reasonable levels of normality in society.
The essence of mental illness is that due to whatever physical or psychological causes, some people do not interact with reality in a manner that reflects the actuality of their environment and surroundings. By this I refer to those who see an event or situation and deny or distort the facts to suit their belief system or whatever other motivation it might be that intercedes between reality and their response to it.
This seems to be the primary modus operandi of those who ascribe to the tenets of Liberalism, i. e., to ignore or deny the obvious facts of reality.
Despite a history that clearly illustrates the vastly superior results of a society in which freedom and individual rights and responsibility reign rather than some arbitrary dignitary with arbitrary and authoritarian powers, they continue to praise the great superiority of collectivism as the best form of societal organization.
The Liberals are quite inclined to pursue the irrational. They seem to dream of a Utopian society in which no one ever sees their needs and wants unfulfilled. They wish for a society in which no one ever has their feelings hurt, in which no one suffers injury or disappointment.
They are, in short, inclined to pine for a world of their fantasies despite being face-to-face with the harsh truth of reality. People are imperfect and their behaviors, therefore, will always be imperfect. There will be those who suffer because of their own ignorance, stupidity, carelessness or mere happenstance. There is little to nothing anyone can do to avert such occurrences yet they seek to impose laws restricting the choices of everyone in their fantasy-based and futile efforts to eradicate pain, suffering and grief.
Is this the pursuit of the rational mind? I think not.
They favor social welfare programs which are collectivist in nature. They seek to provide the basic sustenance for everyone at the expense of the more productive members of a society. That they must steal the assets of a working, productive member of society to provide support for society’s sloth is a fact which they ignore. Rather, they evade the truth by offering irrational platitudes about helping the poor, the disadvantaged or other group for whom they feel commiseration, sympathy or pity.
They then take pride and purpose from their behavior as criminals because they are salving their feelings, i. e., emotions.
Again, is this the pursuit and behavior of the rational?
They perceive themselves as society’s good people, i. e., they see themselves as society’s benefactors by virtue of their desire to do good by helping others. What they do, however, they wish to finance not by their own fortune nor by true charity born of voluntary contributions, but by plundering the fortunes of others using government as their chosen means of said plundering. And because not everyone agrees with their perceptions, they must use government, i. e., the force of arms, to achieve their magnanimous benevolence.
Is this the behavior of the benevolent spirit or the criminal, to confiscate the wealth of one man at gunpoint to support another? Yet this is the Liberal behavior. If you doubt my perceptions, look at the current state of government charity in America. The harsh reality is, charity at the point of a gun is NOT charity, it is merely theft whether the perpetrator is the thug in a dark alley or the thug in the legislature or statehouse.
Their attitude toward others, while couched in a cloak of caring, is in reality quite condescending and arrogant. They perceive themselves as somehow superior to mankind at large and gifted with some sort of superior knowledge or perception regarding the manner in which people should live their lives. They are determined to help the underprivileged because of this gift of superiority they possess by whatever mystical benevolence it is bestowed.
That they perceive others as inferiors is manifest in such advocacies as Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Commissions. What do these organizations do in society? They promote one of the worst horrors of them all as defined by the Liberal ideology; they discriminate. They discriminate against ability specifically. They seek to have the unqualified candidate supplant the qualified candidate be it for academic preference, job placement, or other field of endeavor.
The most disturbing aspect of this is the arrogant, condescending attitude they display toward mankind as a whole. This elitist arrogance may well be the root of their love for and advocacy of collectivism as a proper societal organization. The reason is that their view of the balance of mankind is that he is an inferior being in need of their supervision, care and control lest some undefined ill befall him.
Hence their advocacy of the plethora of consumer laws and other such governmental mechanisms to force upon the average man their veil of protection whether or not he needs, desires or agrees to their benevolence.
Another aspect of Liberal thought which is condescending and the essence of racist is their perceptions that certain people cannot succeed or survive without the benevolence of the Liberals’ collectivist society. Affirmative Action is one manifestation of this particular malady. While the rational man understands that not all men have the means, incentive or drive to reach superlative heights of success, he does respect the potential for each man to achieve to his best. He also understands that one achieves a sense of self-worth and consequently a positive self-image when his survival and achievements in his life are the product of his own efforts and efficacy.
This seems lost on the Liberal who somehow perceives that certain racial, ethnic or other distinctions puts the individual at a disadvantage and thus it is the calling, the life mission of the Liberal to provide an advantage to these lesser capable men. While their efforts in this venue may provide some sense of achievement for them, they ignore the harm it does to the subject of their beneficence by stripping him of his sense of efficacy, achievement and self by making him a ward of the state living off the alms that the Liberal politicians can steal from the productive members of society.
Equal Opportunity is another mythical pursuit of the Liberal mentality. It is best described as another facet of their Utopian fantasies. I can only wonder if they actually believe that such nonsensical inanities actually have some meaning in the context of reality.
The most miniscule application of rational thought reveals the utter folly of such an idea but it seems the public education system has fairly effectively stultified the ability for critical thinking today in many of its indoctrinees. Let’s take first the meaning of opportunity. Of the two meanings in my dictionary, the more general definition is: A chance for progress or advancement.
A chance implies that there is some degree of random spontaneity of the occurrence. Being of a rather spontaneous nature, the opportunity is available only to a limited number of candidates. Of all the potential candidates, not all will have the requisite qualifications to take advantage of the opportunity. Likewise, not all potential candidates will necessarily have an interest in pursuit of the opportunity. Still others are not willing to meet obligations or other criteria necessary to accommodate taking advantage of the opportunity.
Thus it should become plainly obvious that opportunity is a sporadic or rather unpredictable thing. Likewise, any given opportunity is available only to a very limited target population. In light of this information, it becomes obvious to all but the most obstinate that the concept of equal opportunity is no more a real concept than is Utopia.
Yet the Liberals cling to this irrational notion with a religious fervor. Is this a sign of a healthy mind?
Discrimination is another of the great horrors and bugaboos of Liberalism. Political Correctness has infected our language to the point that discrimination in and of itself is an evil. But what does this evil, malignant practice mean in objective terms? To discriminate means to choose, to differentiate. Why is it evil to differentiate? Their only answer is that ‘it’s not fair’ which is, in fact, no answer.
I think perhaps it is because of the concrete bound range of thought that seems to be a self-imposed limitation of the Liberal mind. Thus, equality somehow must be associated with the concrete, the tangible, the measurable. It must relate to appearance, wealth, or other obviously measurable trait, hence their strong advocacy of equality of outcome, the disaster that has taken a heavy toll on the educational system. Unfortunately, this does not integrate with reality because of the obvious disparities from one individual man to the next. However, adherence to reality and intellectual integrity do not seem to be the long suit of the Liberal.
It also seems part of the ingrained ideology of the Liberal mind that one person cannot succeed except at the expense of another, i. e., in order for me to earn a dollar, someone else must forfeit a dollar. I can understand their perspective when I correlate this idea to their love for the idea they espouse as Affirmative Action, which by its very nature and design, must deprive one person for the benefit of another less qualified or less capable.
Because the political correctness movement (the cultural Marxists) cannot tolerate incongruity of thought, dissent, nor do they value or respect individual rights and freedoms, the expression of an alternative point of view, particularly one that is rational, reasoned and well articulated with clearly defined premises is a perpetual threat. The human mind is more likely to accept a clearly delineated, reasoned value system in the context of reality than one based in fantasy, thus their ideas do not sell well when a contrast is permitted into the arena of ideas. While not universally true, this rejection of fancy does seem to be a prevalent proclivity.
The dismissal of or lack of respect for individual rights may well be related to their disdain for its corollary, individual responsibility.
For if one takes responsibility for himself, satisfies his own needs by the effort of his own mind and hand, then he creates for himself a degree of independence. And independence is anathema for the Liberal mindset which is heavily biased toward having the hapless and helpless (in their perception) of society (most of us lesser beings) dependent upon them for handouts to provide their most basic needs.
And this seems to be a perpetual need of the collectivist or Liberal mindset, this need to have others look to them for guidance, direction, handouts, et al. This seems to provide the satiation for whatever it is that substitutes for a genuine sense of self, a positive self-image, self-esteem which, in the rational man is derived from his efficacy in the sustenance of his own life. The Liberal mindset seems to need this sense of self-worth to be provided externally, however, the perception Ayn Rand defined as the 'second-hander'.
Again, are these the actions and pursuits of the rational mind? I think not.
Another of the concepts which Liberals offer is something they term ‘economic justice’. The Liberals present this as a vague, undefined declaration of implied, yet unclarified meaning. This seems to be a common method of Liberalism advocates, to use noble sounding though vague and undefined concepts to promote the ideology of collectivism.
Let us examine the ideas stated and see what is possibly meant by the terms.
The term economic in the sense addressed here most logically pertains to the production, development and management of material wealth, an enterprise necessary for the individual working for his own support or a group of individuals working in concert in the environment of a cooperative business venture or social structure.
Justice pertains to being just, or fairness, or equity. Equity furthers specifies the idea of being impartial, in other words not to favor one over another; rather to evaluate on the basis of merit, i. e., in the context of reality. And that concept makes consummate sense to the rational man for how can one deal in justice if one plays favorites or allows some men to benefit from that which they have not earned be it wealth, honor, respect or love? For example, should one love a rapist or murderer as one loves a person who is loving and kind?
What is the sense of justice promised and projected by the person who answers ‘yes’ to the preceding question?
In economic terms, then, the rational mind can only proffer the idea that economic justice means that one is entitled to that which they have earned, created or discovered or was bequeathed to or gifted to them. For justice means a man should not be deprived of that which is legitimately his.
But the Liberal, when using the terms economic justice, means something entirely different if they can be judged by their actions. And how else might I judge a man but by what he demonstrates to me his efforts and achievements to be?
Despite the fact that every human is unique and that as a result thereof, no two men will produce equally any measure of wealth. Some are more creative, some are smarter, some happen upon the perfect opportunity, some are lazy, some are inept and others just unfortunate in that their plans do not come to fruition. Failures may occur for any of a myriad of reasons from failing to plan one’s enterprise properly to not finding favor with the target customers in the marketplace to the occurrence of a disaster. Success or failure is to some degree the result of the entrepreneur and to some degree circumstance.
But the individual who undertakes the enterprise is the one responsible for the success or failure and hence the beneficiary of the fruits of his labor and likewise responsible for the failure of his efforts. Justice demands that the product of his efforts are his and he owes to another only what has been previously agreed by mutual assent and similarly, the debts incurred as a result of his failure are his to satisfy.
This, to the rational, healthy mind, is economic justice.
But this reality is not taken into account in the Liberal Utopian fantasy. In their vision of the world, everyone should share equally in the successes and there should never be failures because those are painful. And Liberals above all else think there should be no pain or suffering.
The implementation of their idea of economic justice is a collectivist economy and society in which no one owns anything. Everything that anyone produces belongs to the collective and is to be distributed equitably for the use of the collective’s members. The old communist adage, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” pretty well sums up the idea of economic justice from the Liberal perspective.
Thus, as is most often the case, what they say is precisely the opposite of what they mean because what they envision is anything but justice from a rational perspective.
What they ignore, do not wish to see, do not permit themselves to see and hope desperately no one else sees is the destruction this ideological implementation brings about. Human nature is such that penalizing a certain behavior discourages or suppresses that behavior. The practice of discipline in child rearing is probably the most clearly observable example of this concept. One of the behaviors of the creator, the producer, the man of vision and drive is the production of wealth. His excess production of wealth provides that extra or excess capital (beyond that required for his survival and personal pleasure) which funds research, improved means of production, etc., which produce benefits for mankind at large.
When such behaviors are punished, they are discouraged or suppressed. The effect then, of implementing the Liberals’ sense of ‘economic justice’ is to take that which the producer, the creator, the efficacious man has produced and give it to the non-productive, to society’s sloth. And they engage in hand-wringing reproach of their ideal society’s failures ignoring and denying the reality that the implementation of their ideal is the very mechanism of that failure.
Again, is this the behavior of a rational mind, to divorce itself from reality and then recriminate over its clearly predictable failures? I think not.
The Liberal has a great propensity to seek the unearned, the undeserved. Why do I say such a thing? Look at the record of their history.
Liberals in particular have produced a history which manifestly proves the theory of the law of unintended consequences. They have created magnificent welfare statist programs which have succeeded in destroying the lives of many people and squandered vast sums of money but have not markedly changed society as was the highly lauded purpose and goal of these programs.
The ‘War on Poverty’ launched under LBJ is a prime example. The number of Americans living in poverty today is roughly the same percentage of the population as when this ‘War’ was declared 40 years ago. That something like Six Trillion Dollars has been taken from those who earned it and squandered on this failed program has not been cause to eliminate this wasteful and abusive concept, but rather to alter and expand it. Their intentions are good, therefore the nation must proceed to fund this atrocity despite decades of demonstrated failures.
The ‘Americans with Disabilities Act’ was another great Liberal invention. And when presented, the idea sounds like a very noble and compassionate one indeed. But the reality, as is all too often the case has turned out to be rather different from the intent.
It has cost the American consumer billions of dollars needlessly spent on modifying buildings, sidewalks, streets and other things to accommodate the handicapped whether or not the handicapped even used the facilities. There has also been probably greater amounts of money extorted by shyster lawyers and their less than scrupulous clients who routinely shake down businessmen over some marginal infraction of this law.
Again, the intention of the law was magnanimous but the reality has been a catastrophe. Yet it cannot be undone. That would not sit well with the Liberals. It is their intentions that must be measured, not their results.
The ‘Social Security’ swindle of FDR is another example. This is a scheme frequently used by confidence men (con men, criminals) to steal money from unsuspecting marks in a pyramid scheme also called a Ponzi Scheme in honor of Charles Ponzi, one of its early practitioners. The fact that it is a criminal enterprise does not deter the Liberals from espousing that government should be allowed to practice it because their intentions are noble, i. e., to provide economic security for one’s later life.
The fact that private investments would yield significantly greater benefits is not permitted as part of the discussion since that would take this enterprise away from government and return the property (money involved) to its rightful owners. Refer to Social Security, Favor or Fraud in links on the previous page.
In reality, a man is measured by his accomplishments, by his deeds, by his performance. An employer pays his employees for the work they do, for the products they produce or the service they provide. He pays them for their efficient and effective achievements of their job requirements. Promotions and incentives are awarded based on exceptional productivity or ability and achievement. An employer cannot afford to pay employees for their ‘good intentions’ if those intentions provide no product or service or if that provided is inferior.
Reality is a harsh master which one must satisfy. In satisfaction of reality, man builds his self-esteem, his estimate of his self worth, his pride in his ability to survive and succeed as a man.
That he intends to achieve noble deeds does not bring them to fruition. Thus, his intentions, no matter how noble, will not feed him or his family, will not produce an automobile or a house or a spacecraft or a spoon.
Yet the Liberals wish to be judged and evaluated based not on what they achieve but on what they intended to achieve. That their intentions resulted in atrocities and destruction is not of concern because their intentions were good.
Is this the attitude of someone working in consonance with reality or someone divorced from reality? But what is sanity, good mental health, but dealing with reality efficaciously?
Another great myth consistently employed by Liberals when denigrating the businessman is the lie that businessmen are exploiting their workers. The truth is, businessmen as employers are not exploiting their employees. Rather, they are benefiting their employees by providing the employees with a livelihood, an income which gives them the means to support themselves, their families and to pursue their own betterment economically, culturally or into whatever other realm they choose to pursue.
It is the employer who takes the risk of establishing the facility in which his employees work and puts forth the capital to begin an enterprise from which he hopes to profit. He puts himself at risk and seeks to provide a product or service that the public finds desirable at a price the public can and will pay.
Yet the man who has the initiative, the vision, the motivation to put himself at risk and provide a livelihood for some number of his fellow man is vilified by the Liberal mindset as exploiting those with whom he engages in a free exchange of goods and services.
Is this the attitude of a rational, healthy mind holding the best interest of mankind as a whole as a value? I think not.
In all their pursuits of tyrannical totalitarian government (a fact they incessantly deny but which their advocacies and actions belie), Liberals constantly assert that they are only interested in doing what is best for society, the common good, the public, the collective.
The problem with their assertion is that there is no such entity as "the society" or "the public". These entities are abstractions, they are concepts which describe societal organizations but they consist of real, flesh and blood individual men, not clusters of essentially identical beings like worker bees in a bee colony.
The following quote provides a worthy insight into the Liberal ideology.
- "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- -- C. S. Lewis
This site created and maintained by Software Solutions
Hosted by
Communications