Liberal violence versus the culture of life
history shall repeat itself
When you look at the most violent regimes in history, one cannot help but notice that they largely rise up to power from the far left. It is not because it is the left end of the political spectrum versus the right per se, but because the left is more prone to ignoring principles of natural law that it happens so often on the left. Those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind.
The Nazis were socialists and killed tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. The Communists in Russia and China and Korea and Vietnam rose on the far left and, though with a different liberal ideology, also killed hundreds of millions of people and enslaved many more. In South America, we have the Sandinistas, Chavez’s socialists, and the FARC who continue a trend of violence and rollback of anti-democratic measures. In Africa, we have genocidal regimes who proclaim their rhetoric of a new world order that, while espousing words such as freedom and prosperity, are noted because of their gross violence and indifference to human life. Napolean and his regime which inflicted a reign of terror across Europe similarly espoused ideals of brotherhood and equality while showing a callous disregard for human life. To this group, I believe we can see the same seeds have been sown in the ideology of the American left wing, who through abortion have already been responsible for tens of millions of deaths, if not hundreds of millions.
Nobody should doubt it – the violence which lurks beneath the surface of the political left wing has reared its ugly head in every corner of the globe, consistently over centuries. No continent or people are necessarily above it.
The common links of these groups include their liberal philosophies, which give rise to a startling number of similarities.
They each place a nebulous and artificial value on human life. They each tend to have charismatic leaders they rally behind who scapegoats the political enemies for all the people’s problems, marginalizing those poor souls and their right to exist within the society. They each seek to control the public opinion through a combination of controlling the press, brutalizing those who disagree with them. Their leaders usually demand oaths of loyalty not to the state itself but to them personally, thriving on a cult of personality. They each speak of some human lives as not worth living and/or not worthy of life. They always seek to indoctrinate youth by minimizing parental influence and maximizing the influence of the state. They always euphemize their violence and dehumanize those whom they target. They always craft popular prejudices against their scapegoats and political enemies and relentlessly seek to marginalize them through every venue.
They are composed of those seeking a new world order, who believe that drastic measures are needed, and that the end justifies the means. They include many who are carried along by the high minded ideals of equality and future prosperity and overdue justice who are not rooted strongly enough with a basic grounding in what is wrong and what is right. They are enabled by those who look the other way, who just seek to make their way and are afraid to confront them and stand against them.
The symptoms of their iniquitous manifestos are always recognizable in the societies they parasitically leach onto. They undermine the decency of the people who begin to become callous to and turn a blind eye to the injustices of their regime. Those more directly involved in the injustices tend to develop a crude sense of humor that revels in the injustices.
It should not be surprising that the socialists in America now espouse some of these same tendencies in word and deed that we saw from socialists in Germany 75 years ago. How often do we see liberal censorship at work in America? How often do we have conversations with those who do not hold human life sacred and are willing to justify its destruction?
By stark contrast, the vast majority of today’s social conservatives believe in and work for a culture of life. We believe that every life has inherent value and dignity. We stand against the marginalization of any group in society. Most of us are Christian, or some other faith from which we gain our moral grounding, but anybody who exercises reason can affirm the same principles we base not on doctrine and dogma, but on reason and the basic premise aforementioned that every human life has value and dignity simply because it is human life. The tenets of the culture of life philosophy have great untapped potential to reach those on the left and bring them to our side precisely because it is a more true expression of people’s desire to stand for the oppressed that the culture of life movement can offer than the shadow of such moral courage offered by the left.
Today’s social conservatives have a much truer link to the opposition of those violent regimes in the past, where the resistance and commitment to defeating such evils was at its heart propelled by the most basic decency to stand up for the least in society.
Although many social conservatives are decried by some, including many on this site, as merely “populists” or bleeding heart conservatives, there is nothing at all in social conservative philosophy that is incompatible with fiscal conservativism. In many ways, fiscal conservativism is more appealing to social conservatives because we recognize in the economic realm the application of those same essential principles that we depend upon in the moral realm, most pointedly sound reasoning. If mankind has inherent dignity and worth, it follows that there are limits as to what the state, which is merely an instrumentality of man which ought to preserve and protect that worth, may do. That which can be done just as well by smaller levels of government more directly responsive to the people are trusted more than larger levels of government, hence the subsidiarity arguments in favor of limited, small, and local government share support from both social conservatives as well as fiscal conservatives. Financial responsibility mirrors moral responsibility and accountability, and makes sense on a very basic level to social conservatives.
I believe what the GOP needs now, what is essential if we are to reverse the past few years trend toward the Democratic brand, is to recast our own brand and markedly contrast it with that of the Democrats’. We are the party of life. We are the party that protects basic human dignity where the Democrats do not. We are the party that adheres to moral responsibility and fiscal responsibility while the Democrats do neither but merely sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. We must do a much much better job of reaching out to youth in this country and aggressively pursuing their support along tangible lines they can readily relate to, and being the party that always can trace its positions and platforms back to protecting those rights of mankind that flow forth from the proposition that we have inherent worth and dignity is the way to do it.