Archive for the ‘The Left’ Category

THE NEW McCARTHYITES AND THE “PROGRESSIVE” MONEY MACHINE

THE NEW McCARTHYITES AND THE “PROGRESSIVE” MONEY MACHINE

by Michael Dennin

On February 17th, news broke that billionaire financier and Obama fundraiser Tom Steyer was planning to raise $100 million – half of which would come out of his own pocket – to run an ad campaign during the 2014 elections attacking any candidate who doesn’t support the Left’s “climate change” agenda. The news came on the heels of Steyer’s successful $8 million effort to buy the Virginia gubernatorial campaign for Democrat Terry McAuliffe in 2013.

Meanwhile, the New McCarthyites in the Democratic party have doubled-down on their scorched earth campaign to silence conservative and libertarian organizations in the run-up to the 2014 mid-term elections. While the Obama administration has refused to mount a credible and effective investigation into the IRS’ self-confessed misconduct and Senator Charles Schumer called on the agency to continue its political witch hunt, the administration proposed new rules (see Kimberley Strassel’s article at bottom) targeting Right-wing groups that even the ACLU condemned as an affront to free speech and the promotion of an informed citizenry. Others on the Right accurately described the rules changes as censorship masquerading as legal stewardship.

One might ask what do “progressives” spending tens of millions of dollars on political campaigns have in common with their effort to prevent conservative non-profits from spending any money on political campaigns? Obviously, the answers are power and money. What’s less obvious but just as important to “progressives” is the perpetuation of the myth that the New Left is the party of the common man and not the party of the political and economic elite. Fortunately, conservatives such as David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin are now destroying that myth. In their meticulously researched book The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America’s Future [1], Horowitz and Laskin expose what might be the biggest dirty secret in American politics – how “progressive” foundations have outspent conservative and libertarian foundations by hundreds of millions of dollars. Here is a summary of their findings:

Comparative Assets and Grant Expenditures of Conservative and Progressive Foundations

Appendix I (pp.185-187)

1. Total Assets of Conservative and Progressive Foundations Compared

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Think Progress – two progressive organizations – identified 96 conservative foundations, 82 of which currently do not have zero or negative assets. As of 2010, the total asset value of the 82 conservative foundations was: $10,288,081,969 ($10.29 billion)

DiscovertheNetworks.org has identified 122 major foundations as progressive, 115 of which currently do not have zero or negative assets. As of 2010, the total asset value of these 115 foundations was: $104,555,636,781 ($104.56 billion)

This represents a total asset value for the Left that is over ten times (10.16X) larger than the total assets of the Right.

2. Average Assets of Conservative and Progressive Foundations Compared

For the 82 conservative foundations that had no zero or negative assets the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Think Progress identified, the average assets value is currently: $125,464,414 ($125.46 million)

For the 115 foundations that had no zero or negative assets DiscovertheNetworks.org identified, the average assets value is: $909,179,450 (909.18 million)

This represents an average asset value for the Left that is over seven times (7.25X) larger than the average asset value of the Right.

3. Total Grants Awarded by Conservative and Progressive Foundations Compared

Of the 82 conservative foundations that had no zero or negative assets identified by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Think Progress, the total grants awarded was: $831,797,191 ($831.80 million)

Of the 115 progressive foundations that had no zero or negative assets identified by DTN, the total grants awarded figure was: $8,807,988,218 ($8.81 billion)

This represents a total grants awarded figure by the Left that is over ten times (10.59X) larger than the total grants awarded by the Right.

4. Average Grants Awarded by Conservative and Progressive Foundations Compared

Of the 82 conservative foundations that had no zero or negative assets identified by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Think Progress, the average grants awarded figure was: $10,143,868 ($10.14 million)

Of the 115 progressive foundations that had no zero or negative assets identified by DTN, the average grants awarded figure was: $76,591,202 ($76.59 million)

This represents an average grants awarded by the Left that is over seven times (7.55X) larger than the average grants awarded by the Right.

The superiority of the Left-wing money machine is further confirmed in the Center of Responsive Politics “Heavy Hitters: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014” list [2], which reveals that 7 of the top 10 political donors in America are Leftist and none of them are conservative. Here are the top 10 Heavy Hitters (Democrat donors in blue):

1. ActBlue (“the online clearinghouse for Democratic action”)

2. American Federation of State, Country and Municipal Employees/AFSCME (public sector labor union)

3. AT&T (non-partisan, donates to both parties)

4. National Education Association/NEA (public sector labor union)

5. National Association of Realtors (non-partisan, donates to both parties)

6. Goldman Sachs (non-partisan, donates to both parties)

7. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (labor union)

8. United Auto Workers/UAW (labor union)

9. Carpenters and Joiners Union (labor union)

10. Service Employees International Union/SEIU (labor union)

Looking over the rankings, one can’t help but notice that the Left’s favorite boogeymen, the libertarian Koch brothers, finished 59th on the list, while the Democratic party’s big union benefactors – who have been exempted from the Obama administration’s rules changes aimed at conservative & libertarian non-profits – occupy 6 of the top 10 spots.

From “progressive” California billionaires buying gubernatorial elections in Virginia to the enormous advantage in spending that Leftist foundations, unions and PACs have over their Right-wing counterparts, the public is now beginning to become aware of the fact that it is Left-wing money that is dominating America’s political landscape. In light of this, we can see that the New McCarthyites’ efforts to silence and destroy their conservative opponents through bureaucratic fiat and harassment has absolutely nothing to do with leveling a playing field that is already heavily tilted in their own favor. Contrary to their self-serving propaganda, it is clear that “progressives” really aren’t interested in fairness at all. As was the case with their Jacobin and Bolshevik ancestors, the only things that the New Left are interested in is absolute power and control.

Notes:

[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Leviathan-Left-Wing-Money-Machine/dp/0307716457

[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Advertisements

Posted February 25, 2014 by Candidus in Elections, Government, Politics, The Left

SOCIALISM’S NIHILISTIC HUMORS

SOCIALISM’S NIHILISTIC HUMORS

“We are five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

— Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

From The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical assault on America’s Future

by David Horowitz ©1998

pp. 29-30

“Critical theory” – the coy self-description of the ideological Left – self-consciously describes itself by the totality of its rejection of the existing social order, in identical fashion to old-style Marxists (Marx himself was a “critical theorist”). The explicit agenda of critical theory is to undermine the credibility and authority of the status quo in order to prepare its annihilation. The task of undermining communal assumptions and stabilizing faiths is not incidental to the radical critique, but is its corrosive essence. It is what the theory intends. Yet, like the Marxist-Leninists of the past, critical theorists never confront the moral issue posed by their destructive agendas: What can be the rationale for weakening and ultimately destroying a system as liberal as the existing one, if no better has been devised?

Without its adherents noticing, the theoretical argument of the Left has been emptied of content by the failures of socialism. For what is the practical meaning of a socialist critique in the absence of a workable socialist model? In fact, there is none. By adopting an impossible standard, it is easy to find fault with any institution or social system under scrutiny. The ideal of socialist equality, for example, may or may not be admirable. But if social equality cannot be realized in practice, or if the attempt to realize it necessarily creates a totalitarian state, then the idea of such equality can have no significance except as an incitement to destructive agendas.

To raise the socialist ideal to a critical standard imposes a burden of responsibility on its advocates that critical theorists refuse to shoulder. If one sets out to destroy a lifeboat because it fails to meet the standards of a luxury yacht, the act of criticism may be perfectly “just”, but the passengers will drown all the same. Similarly, if socialist principles can only be realized in a socialist gulag, even the presumed inequalities of the capitalist market are worth the price. If socialist poverty and socialist police states are the practical alternative to capitalist inequality, what justice can there be in destroying capitalist freedoms and the benefits they provide? Without a practical alternative to offer, radical idealism is radical nihilism – a war of destruction with no objective other than war.

* * *

Additional Comments

by Michael Dennin

In the passage above, David Horowitz observes that the radical nihilism of the socialist Left is “a war of destruction with no objective other than war.” To this could be added that the objective of this war of destruction is destruction itself. Horowitz alludes to this in his observation that “the explicit agenda of critical theory is to undermine the credibility and authority of the status quo in order to prepare its annihilation.” This theme is also explored at length in Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel Demons, which was published in 1871-72. In this novel, Dostoevsky tells the story of a group of Russian Nihilists who actively attempt to undermine the credibility and authority of the status quo in order to destroy it. Like modern day socialists who have no working alternative to offer society, Dostoevsky’s Nihilists neglect to provide one themselves. They are only interested in destruction for destruction’s sake.

This brings us to Barack Obama’s shockingly candid admission that his agenda is to fundamentally transform the United States of America. This is not the pragmatic agenda of a moderate who wants to improve his country – it is the radical project of a nihilist who wants to destroy his country without providing a viable alternative to what has produced the freest, strongest and most prosperous nation on earth. Once again, it is an agenda of destruction for destruction’s sake. However, this does not mean that Obama and his neo-socialist co-travelers are not interested in waging war for war’s sake. They have made it clear that they are not interested in cooperation and compromise and are notorious for demonizing their “enemies” in the most slanderous terms (“terrorists”, “arsonists”,”anarchists”, etc.). The raw, naked hatred at the black heart of their nihilism has poisoned our body politic, debased our public discourse and created an unprecedented level of divisiveness in this country. Thus, their greatest legacy will not be the harm their destructive policies have inflicted on America. It will be the harm their nihilism has inflicted on America’s soul.

Posted February 25, 2014 by Candidus in Politics, The Left

COUNTERING THE LEFT’S OBAMACARE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN

COUNTERING THE LEFT’S OBAMACARE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN
By Michael Dennin

As the rising fear of another electoral backlash against ObamaCare looms on the horizon, the president has not only resorted to arbitrarily suspending parts of his signature healthcare plan, he has resorted to fear-mongering and outright lies and slander to defend the law and his party from another massacre at the polls similar to the one that cost Democrats control of the House of Representatives in 2010.

The president’s lies and fear-mongering in response to the calls of Republicans and grassroots conservatives to defund ObamaCare first came to light in an August 9 press conference where he claimed that “the one unifying principle in the Republican Party at the moment is making sure that 30 million people don’t have health care”. Not only is this lie patently absurd – the GOP isn’t capable of denying anyone healthcare in this country – it speaks to the president’s abject contempt for the intelligence of the American people in his fraudulent effort to delegitimize the opposition to the Left’s effort to hand control of our healthcare over to politicians and bureaucrats in the federal government. Coincidentally, on the very same day that Obama climbed own into the gutter to spout his libelous falsehood, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confessed that ObamaCare was exactly what its critics claimed all along – a deliberate step to destroy our existing healthcare system and the autonomy of individuals over their own private healthcare decisions in order to obtain the socialist holy grail of government-run healthcare. Reducing costs and improving care was never the real objective of the “Affordable Care Act” – the real objective was power and control.

As if it were even possible, Obama took the “progressive” craziness up a notch on August 17 when he declared “in the United States of America, health insurance isn’t a privilege – it is your right.” This decree was greeted with howls of laughter and derision from coast to coast for good reason. With a wave of his imperial hand, the president benevolently granted Americans a “right” that they had to purchase, but if they refused to submit to purchasing this “right” he would punish them financially. Not only did this ludicrous proposal mark the first time in history where a right had to be purchased, it marked the first time a person could be penalized for not exercising a right. How could anyone not scoff at this nonsense? Compounding his folly, the president then went on to add that “we’re going to keep it that way”, but he conveniently failed to explain precisely how he was going to keep something that never existed in existence. Finally, the president couldn’t resist the opportunity to make the battle over ObamaCare about himself instead of his policies, claiming that the opponents of his signature healthcare legislation believe that if they can “make this law fail, they’ll somehow be sticking it to me. But, they’d be just sticking it to you.” This is quite a statement coming from the man who is sticking the destruction of our healthcare system and individual freedom to us. It is little wonder he has to distract from that fact by trying to convince people that the opposition to ObamaCare is something about Barack Obama’s person and not his policies, and what could this thing about Barack Obama’s person possibly be?

The result of the historic Republican landslide in the 2010 elections, which was based largely on the public’s negative reaction to ObamaCare, should have been a “teachable moment” for Barack Obama, but Barack Obama doesn’t listen to the American people. He lectures them. He lies to them. He insults their intelligence. He tells them what is good for them and what their rights and responsibilities are, and whoever opposes him is “immoral”, “greedy” or a “racist” for refusing to submit to his neo-socialist ideology, agenda and policies. It’s the classic Stalinist morality play – opposition is “immoral”, opposition is “reactionary” (versus “progressive”). This is just a sample of the propaganda war that Obama and his neo-socialist co-travelers will be waging against the opponents of ObamaCare, most particularly those who want to defund the law regardless of the president’s threats to shut down the government. Obama & Co. will say and do anything to demonize their opponents because that is how the radical acolytes of Saul Alinsky delegitimize the arguments of their opponents, through the politics of personal destruction. Therefore, it is imperative that conservatives and libertarians be prepared to face and counter the Left’s propaganda and character assassination campaign, not only on an individual level but on the group level, as well. This means that we are not only going to have to defend our individual selves, we are going to have to defend each other, including our representatives in Washington, DC who are stepping up to fight and defund ObamaCare and the rest of the president’s socialist policies. Those men and women need our support and it’s up to each and every one of us to let them know that they have our support. As Benjamin Franklin said, we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Posted September 12, 2013 by Candidus in Activism, The Left

Revisiting Barack Obama’s Marxist Roots

(Photoshop from the American Patriot Council Blog, April 18, 2008)

Obama – Revolution You Can Believe In

By Melanie Phillips

The Spectator
September 09, 2008

In her game-changing convention speech, Sarah Palin took a swipe at Obama for having been nothing more in his life than a ‘community organiser’.

This prompted the Obama campaign to issue a pained defence of community organisation as a way of promoting social change ‘from the bottom up’. The impression is that community organising is a worthy if woolly and ultimately ineffectual grassroots activity. This is to miss something of the greatest importance: that in the world of Barack Obama, community organisers are a key strategy in a different game altogether; and the name of that game is revolutionary Marxism.

The seditious role of the community organiser was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky. He was a radical Chicago activist who, by the time he died in 1972, had had a profound influence on the highest levels of the Democratic party. Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society. In similar vein, Alinsky condemned the New Left for alienating the general public by its demonstrations and outlandish appearance. The revolution had to be carried out through stealth and deception. Its proponents had to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism. A master of infiltration, Alinsky wooed Chicago mobsters and Wall Street financiers alike. And successive Democratic politicians fell under his spell.

His creed was set out in his book Rules for Radicals – a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the ‘first radical’. It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through ‘people’s organisations’.

Community organisers would mobilise direct action by the oppressed masses against their capitalist oppressors. In FrontPageMagazine.Com John Perazzo writes:

These People’s Organizations were to be composed largely of discontented individuals who believed that society was replete with injustices that prevented them from being able to live satisfying lives. Such organizations, Alinsky advised, should not be imported from the outside into a community, but rather should be staffed by locals who, with some guidance from trained radical organizers, could set their own agendas.

The installment of local leaders as the top-level officers of People’s Organizations helped give the organizations credibility and authenticity in the eyes of the community. This tactic closely paralleled the longtime Communist Party strategy of creating front organizations that ostensibly were led by non-communist fellow-travelers, but which were in fact controlled by Party members behind the scenes…

Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization… Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict’ and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘ ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.

Obama’s connection with Alinsky, whom he never met but whom he reportedly idolised, was through two bodies promoting the Alinsky model of community organisation, ACORN and the Gamaliel Foundation. John Perazzo again:

Obama was trained by the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago and worked for an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of ‘a more just and democratic society’ is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method. As The Nation magazine puts it, ‘Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing…’ In fact, for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.

But Obama brought a special slant to Alinsky’s radicalism. Far from being – as he has been painted – a ‘post-racial’ politician, Obama’s politics are all about promoting the cause of black people and achieving ‘reparations’ from white society (a perspective through which his whole welfare redistribution agenda is framed). Accordingly, he saw his three-year role as a community organiser in Chicago as mobilising black people for action against their white oppressors. Finding himself hampered in creating an activist network among black churches, he decided to join such a church to give himself more credibility. That’s why he joined the infamous black-power Trinity Church of Christ – a move, it seems, that had less to do with any spiritual quest than as a radical tactic for mobilising the black proletariat.

According to Stanley Kurtz in National Review (subscription required), as a trainer for Gamaliel and ACORN Obama used his influence to secure a major increase in funding for both groups. Kurtz writes of Gamaliel, one of the least known yet most influential national umbrella groups for church-based community organizers:

Gamaliel specializes in ideological stealth, and Obama, a master student of Gamaliel strategy, shows disturbing signs of being a sub rosa radical himself. Obama’s legislative tactics, as well as his persistent professions of non-ideological pragmatism, appear to be inspired by his radical mentors’ most sophisticated tactics. Not only has Obama studied, taught, and apparently absorbed stealth techniques from radical groups like Gamaliel and ACORN, but in his position as a board member of Chicago’s supposedly nonpartisan Woods Fund, he quietly funneled money to his radical allies — at the very moment he most needed their support to boost his political career.

Kurtz also quotes Rutgers political scientist Heidi Swarts who, in her book Organizing Urban America: Secular and Faith-based Progressive Movements, lays out the strategy of stealth:

Swarts calls groups like ACORN and (especially) Gamaliel ‘invisible actors,’ hidden from public view because they often prefer to downplay their efforts, because they work locally, and because scholars and journalists pay greater attention to movements with national profiles (like the Sierra Club or the Christian Coalition). Congregation-based community organizations like Gamaliel, by contrast, are often invisible even at the local level. A newspaper might report on a demonstration led by a local minister or priest, for example, without noticing that the clergyman in question is part of the Gamaliel network. ‘Though often hidden from view,’ says Swarts, ‘leaders have intentionally and strategically organized these movements that appear to well up and erupt from below.’

Although Gamaliel and ACORN have significantly different tactics and styles, Swarts notes that their political goals and ideologies are broadly similar. Both groups press the state for economic redistribution. The tactics of Gamaliel and ACORN have been shaped in a ‘post-Alinsky’ era of welfare reform and conservative resurgence, posing a severe challenge to those who wish to expand the welfare state. The answer these activists have hit upon, says Swarts, is to work incrementally in urban areas, while deliberately downplaying the far-Left ideology that stands behind their carefully targeted campaigns.

To avoid seeming like radicals or ‘hippies left over from the sixties,’ Gamaliel organizers are careful to wear conventional clothing and conduct themselves with dignity, even formality. Since liberal social movements tend to come off as naïve and idealistic, Gamaliel organizers make a point of presenting their ideas as practical, pragmatic, and down-to-earth. When no one else is listening, Gamaliel organizers may rail at ‘racism,’ ‘sexism,’ and ‘oppressive corporate systems,’ but when speaking to their blue-collar followers, they describe their plans as ‘common sense solutions for working families.’

If anyone should doubt Obama’s debt to Saul Alinsky, they might ponder this encomium from no less an authority than Alinsky’s own son. In a letter to the Boston Globe, L. David Alinsky wrote of his father’s influence at the Democratic Convention:

All the elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situation and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd’s chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people.

Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

Obama’s questionable links to various radicals are now well-known: the black power racists Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Fr. Michael Pfleger, the former Weather Underground terrorism supporters Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn. On CNN’s Glenn Beck show a few days ago Jerome Corsi, author of Obama Nation, observed:

Obama began his career, his coming out party in 1995, in Ayers and Bernadine Dorn’s home. And then for, you know, some 20 years, Obama has been working with Ayers, certainly since 1995, on a series of foundations: the Annenberg Foundation and the Woods Foundation. The boards of directors together, or in the Annenberg Foundation, Ayers created it, and Obama was on it. And together they spent the money of these foundations to implement their radical socialist agenda.

As EM Forster wrote in a somewhat different context, only connect.

When Hillary Clinton was fighting Obama for the Democratic candidacy, her camp implied that the party would be making a terrible mistake in selecting Obama because, unlike centrist Hillary, he was a left-winger. But Hillary is an even more fervent Alinsky acolyte. In their book The Shadow Party, David Horowitz and Glenn Poe recount how Hillary first met Alinsky through a left-wing church group to which she belonged in high school, and stayed close to him until his death. Indeed, so impressed was she with his beliefs that she wrote a 75-page salute to him in her senior thesis at Wellesley College in 1969, which contained excerpts of the not-yet published Rules for Radicals. She wrote:

If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution. Ironically, this is not a disjunctive projection if considered in the tradition of Western democratic theory. In the first chapter it was pointed out that Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared — just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths — democracy.

That’s not democracy as we know it, more a Marxist conception of people power. On FrontPage, Perazzo writes:

During her senior year, Hillary was offered a job by Alinsky but chose instead to enrol at Yale Law School. Alinsky’s teachings, however, would remain close to her heart throughout her adult life. According to a Washington Post report, ‘As first lady, Clinton occasionally lent her name to projects endorsed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the Alinsky group that had offered her a job in 1968. She raised money and attended two events organized by the Washington Interfaith Network, an IAF affiliate.’

Alinsky was a radical straight out of the Gramsci playbook. In both America and Britain, Gramsci’s acolytes have been conducting a decades-long march through the institutions. In Britain, they have substantially achieved their aim of subverting western morality and changing the face of British society. No political party stands against this. In the US, they have made huge inroads but haven’t yet won. With Palin on one side and Obama on the other, it is now clear that this US presidential election has taken the culture war to the gates of the White House itself.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2073071/revolution-you-can-believe-in.html

Posted September 30, 2012 by Candidus in Barack Obama, The Left

The Moral, Intellectual and Practical Bankruptcy of Socialism

In this excerpt from David Horowitz’s The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America’s Future, one of the finest refutations of Socialism and the New Left ever written, the author deconstructs the moral, intellectual and practical bankruptcy of Socialism to reveal its nihilistic essence of pointless destruction:

pp. 29-30

“Critical theory” – the coy self-description of the ideological Left – self-consciously describes itself by the totality of its rejection of the existing social order, in identical fashion to old-style Marxists (Marx himself was a “critical theorist”). The explicit agenda of critical theory is to undermine the credibility and authority of the status quo in order to prepare its annihilation. The task of undermining communal assumptions and stabilizing faiths is not incidental to the radical critique, but is its corrosive essence. It is what the theory intends. Yet, like the Marxist-Leninists of the past, critical theorists never confront the moral issue posed by their destructive agendas: What can be the rationale for weakening and ultimately destroying a system as liberal as the existing one, if no better has been devised?

Without its adherents noticing, the theoretical argument of the Left has been emptied of content by the failures of socialism. For what is the practical meaning of a socialist critique in the absence of a workable socialist model? In fact, there is none. By adopting an impossible standard, it is easy to find fault with any institution or social system under scrutiny. The ideal of socialist equality, for example, may or may not be admirable. But if social equality cannot be realized in practice, or if the attempt to realize it necessarily creates a totalitarian state, then the idea of such equality can have no significance except as an incitement to destructive agendas.

To raise the socialist  ideal to a critical standard imposes a burden of responsibility on its advocates that critical theorists refuse to shoulder. If one sets out to destroy a lifeboat because it fails to meet the standards of a luxury yacht, the act of criticism may be perfectly “just”, but the passengers will drown all the same. Similarly, if socialist principles can only be realized in a socialist gulag, even the presumed inequalities of the capitalist market are worth the price. If socialist poverty and socialist police states are the practical alternative to capitalist inequality, what justice can there be in destroying capitalist freedoms and the benefits they provide? Without a practical alternative to offer, radical idealism is radical nihilism – a war of destruction with no objective other than war.

If you would like to purchase a copy of Mr. Horowitz’s brilliant book you can obtain a copy online here:

The Politics of Bad Faith by David Horowitz

Posted August 21, 2012 by Candidus in The Left