liberalism takes its last gasp   Leave a comment

In 1967, Professor Arthur A. Ekirch (1915-2000), announced that the American Left was on life support with his publication of The Decline of American Liberalism. In “Decline..”, Professor Ekirch, himself a Liberal, described the chaos and inconsistencies within the framework and the philosophy of American Liberalism, yet he offered no explanations and no solutions which might save the Left. I would like, in the wake of N.P.R.’s firing of Juan Williams, to say that there were and are no solutions, and to announce that as a political force and as ethical and philosophical theory, American Liberalism (and its underpinning, Progressivism) is no longer in decline. The plug has been pulled on the patient by the Left’s friends. Liberalism is dead.

N. P. R., a government financed arm of the New Left, fired Juan Williams, a black liberal and one of the last of the old guard of what was America’s original Liberal philosophy that embraced reason, fairness, goodwill, and commitment to principle, at the behest of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). N.P.R did this in retaliation for Williams sanity, reason, and good sense and his acknowledgment that America faces the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, and ought to call it out for what it is if we intend to defend our nation.

Williams – civil rights activist, Liberal, and a voice of reason on Fox News for the old school Liberal embrace of intellectual honesty,American values, and the American melting pot, did what the New Left considers an unpardonable offense, he spoke truth to power by acknowledging the threat of Islamic fundamentalist thought and methods of fear, intimidation, and its demands for submission.

CAIR, is an Islamic Fundamentalist front group in the U.S. that poses as an apologist for Islamism and pretends that it is a peaceful moderate Muslim advocacy group. CAIR, as one of the masters of its lap-dog N.P.R, called for Williams head in the name of consistency with “{their} editorial standards and practices”, and N.P.R was, of course, happy to comply.

If Mr.Williams was fired for inconsistency with the editorial practices and standards of N.P.R., and the actions of the Left indicate that indeed, he was, what then are the editorial practices and standards of N.P.R.?  I ask this of Vivian Schiller, President and Chief Executive Officer of N.P.R.

Mr. Williams was expressing his very personal irrational, yet understandable fears while loudly and clearly supporting the rights of Muslims.  Perhaps advocacy for multiculturalism and freedom of thought and opinion are inconsistent with N.P.R’s editorial practice and standards. Are they, Ms. Schiller?

Mr. Williams expressed the logical view that most Americans hold, which is that we face an existential threat from radical Islam, a threat which became apparent when three thousand people were killed by Islamists on 9/11/2000; it became apparent on that day even to those who were the most sonambulant. Perhaps reason and logic, and acknowledgment of the threat of radical Islam are not consistent with the editorial practices and standards of N.P.R. Are they,Ms. Schiller.?

Mr. Williams has appeared as a voice for Liberal thought on Conservative leaning Fox News, where they and he believe that it is necessary to  listen to the views of those with whom one disagrees in order to solidify one’s own opinion or to recognize it if one is incorrect.  Perhaps intellectual honesty, integrity of one’s position, and standards of fairness are inconsistent with N.P.R’s editorial practices and standards.  Are they, Ms. Schiller?

All of us have CAIR, N.P.R., and the rest of the New Left’s establishment to thank for finally placing the target on their own philosophically bankrupt and corrupt head. We must thank the New Left for bringing the Left’s intolerance and hatred for reason, free thought, and America and her supporters into the light. Thank you, N.P. R., for finally pulling the plug on the terminally ill patient which you helped to kill with Progressive poison.

The politically correct firing of Williams should come as no surprise to anyone. It is the last gasp of the Left.  The far Left, now the dominant force in Liberalism, dinds itself with  no moral standing and  no principles.  Their last gasp is the politics of hate and intolerance.  Once they abandoned rational debate for the sake of emotionalism the left was left without philosophical legs to stand their tower of cards on.  Professor Ekirch told us they had no ideas  back in 1967. The Left’s friends at CAIR and N.P.R. have finally pulled the legs out from under the once seemingly impenetrable tower.

In The Decline of American Liberalism Ekirch admitted that Liberalism was not “a well defined political or economic system”,  but rather a “collection of ideas or principles which go to make up an attitude or ‘habit of mind’”.

What, today, is Liberalism’s ‘habit of mind’? It can be summed up with “do not offend’, “be fair to everyone”, “ideas are equally valid’, and “don’t be so mean”. In other words: Politically correct. If one wishes for a moment to adopt the Left’s irrational notion that everyone speaks in code, the code for the left would be:  “don’t make waves…unless you feel threatened or offended, then pull out the big guns of hate and blame”.

In the form of William’s firing those big guns targeted  the threat facing Political correctness – reality, reason and free speech.

Writer Andrew Sullivan, with all due irrationality that one would expect from the bankrupt left, chose to go after Juan Williams.  With the typical Liberal pretense of “do not offend”,  the Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan has the audacity to compare recognition of the danger of radical Islam with racism.  This is of course common practice for the intellectually bankrupt Left. The tactic is a desperate ploy to engender moral support from blacks, and other ethnic minorities.  These groups have a long history of dealing with actual racial animus and civil violations. One would reasonably expect members of these groups to have empathy towards victims of bigotry. With cynical inferences, by comparison to racial stereotyping,  Sullivan exposes the true nature of the Left: – divide and conquer. 

Perhaps Sullivan will stand by his convictions, and will not require us to read between his thinly drawn lines and smuggled premises.  Perhaps he may have the intellectual courage to state the position he wishes to leave hidden. Is Mr. Sullivan prepared to openly identify Williams, a civil rights veteran, as a bigot? Will he also stand with honor — with what he and the Left have believed to be a truth?  Will the left make the philosophical case that racism and profiling (the visual identification of a subject by means of physical characteristics and attire) are equivalent?

If, for instance in a criminal investigation, one is compiling a profile for a suspect, one has at first neither names, nor histories, nor an account of the person’s known interests.  All that is yet available is the suspect’s physical characteristics. If identifying an individual by physical means is racist, one must be arguing that the physical characteristics are that which makes up the individuals race.

If this be the case, who is it that is maintaining these irrational equivalencies of racism? Those who are looking for an anonymous unknown based on a description, or those who equate  said description with identity — with moral and intellectual  character and thus moral judgment?

Is the Left prepared to fully divorce themselves from the legacy of M.L. King and assert the foundational premise of this absurd tie between profiling and race? Are they prepared to say, in contradiction to Dr. King, that an individual is synonymous with their physical characteristics, and not the material of their character? 

To maintain a coherent logical argument supportive of these ties they must do so.  This is the only possible meaning behind the argument that identifying an individual by racial characteristics (skin tone, hair color, etc.) in criminal investigations  is defacto racism  Racism is the irrational notion that their is both equivalency and a direct link between an individuals moral and intellectual character and his physical characteristics.

This is the implication of the premises underneath the calls against “profiling”; they are the premises that the left alone must grapple with. Mr. Sullivan and his allies cannot make the case for the tenuous connections they’ve made between profiling, racism, and alleged bigotry in the fight against radical Islam.  And they know it. They also know that if the rest of us remain ignorant of the premises involved, emotionalism and appeals to core American values make for a handy substitute.

Radical Islam knows it as well.

Islamofascists,  In America and elsewhere Islamofascists  use America’s values of colorblindness and racial tolerance against us. Unwittingly accepting the Radical Islam apologists appeals to our better natures, we’ve allowed Political correctness to stand as a firewall between America and reason.   Our deepest held values and beliefs — the identity of our nation — have been transmogrified into a weapon to be used against us. The cult of  Political Correctness — in the form of the Liberal Establishment —  today act as surrogates for the Fundamentalist agenda of dominance. From the horse’s very helpful mouth, we have Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stating that

Radical Islam’s system of domination is founded on depriving nations of their true identity. It seeks to deprive nations of their culture, identity, self-confidence and in this way dominate them.

The New Left has nothing with which  to defend itself or to validate its ‘habit of mind’. All they can now do is continue lashing out at those with whom they disagree. They have no arguments.  Their policies have not worked in any arena where they are employed. All they can now do is attempt to destroy their opponents with smear and innuendo, and try to recruit new supporters amongst the racist and irrational fringe. Those who equate reason with hate..

Such is the fate of any and all who embrace the Orwellian language and method of thought.  Such must be the fate of a mind that has disintegrated so far that it can profess that it believes one thing when it acts upon, publicly advocates, and uses the language of that things opposite.

Modern Liberalism: Rest in Peace.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: