This presentation was held at the Property and Freedom Society’s 6th Annual Meeting in Bordrum, Turkey on May 26-30, 2011 at the Karia Princess Hotel
How the Left conquered the Right.
General historical context, the left has become the only or dominant ideology. There is nothing else but the Left that frames and shapes the political debate.
A few weeks ago, Krauthammer, a Republican, that Obama’s presidency will fail because most americans are on the right or conservative, for last 50 years, and won’t change.
The Left has moved from one giddy triumph to the next for the last 50 years. The Left won every single one of those political/ideological battles.
Conservatives resisted federal attempts to integrate schools racially in the south. They fought against the notion that men and women would be treated exactly the same way, arguing instead that there were some ineradicable gender differences, traditional social roles were defensible, certainly as they existed in the western world. Conservatives doggedly resisted the feminist movement. The Gay movement was not even on the horizon.
On social issues today, the authorized established conservative movement in the U.S. would argue that feminism is a great western achievement. we just don’t want to push it too far. In fact, as Jonah Goldberg, one of our leading conservative journalist, argued in a widely read column, it would be proper to bring feminism to the rest of the world, those parts that are benighted and who might enjoy these blessings.
Gay Rights will be treated as a conservative accomplishment. Most things that the left are able to push through, conservatives will consecrate at some point in the future and recreate as a conservative accomplishment. The civil rights leader, MLK, who expressed marxist economic views, who was certainly not a traditional christian but asocial radical is now praised by all the leading conservative foundations and self-described conservative foundations in the United States and by the public and press as conservative Christian theologian and a conservative Christian thinker.
In this sense, of course, Krauthhammer is correct. There was something called conservatism 50 years ago that people believed and accepted as the status quo are therefore conservative and they accept the same or whatever propositions are accepted now as conservative, they are just the party of resistance of further change. That is until the democrats come along and introduce Obamacare and becomes established, which the republicans will accept it as conservative measure and which has to be properly managed. It’s just a matter of the Right consecrating what the Left has already done and redefining them as conservative achievements.
Why has the left been successful, and why has the right been retreating? What do we mean by right and by left? What puts you on the right is that you oppose the doctrine of human equality. They believe that human beings are by nature unequal. And if you’re a traditional conservative you defend hierarchy as better than its alternatives. You oppose any state attempt to level down differences. Social differences, gender differences.
2nd criteria I would suppose is preference or strong commitment to traditional social morality. Whether you want to use the state to enforce this, and I do not because I think he state is pernicious and will always work in the opposite direction and therefore I am strategically a radical libertarian, and therefore I do not think that anyone should have that people should have right to any form of lifestyle [as a human right? or a uniright?] that given what the political configuration or situation at the present time what is likely to be in the future I would like to remove the state from public or from private life. But a traditional conservative beliefs are those morals upon which society have rested, certainly in the western world, often referred contemptuously as bourgeoisie morality, should be defended and are necessary for the social good and they’re necessary for the individual developement.
The Left, on the other hand, is opposed to this. A Catholic who believes in catholic natural law doctrine is opposed to nature itself. But they believe that nature is malleable and that society until now is based on social, cultural injustice. And the modern therapeutic welfare state is the ideal, convenient, expediential instrument to change everything and to create a more egalitarian world in which national boundaries other things that have divided us in the past–gender differences, religion, all of these things will be removed. And human beings for the first time will become more sensitive and just. The more radical multiculturalist will argue that these thins already exist in non-western societies, and that the west is behind, and what this requires that we do is radically reconstruct every other non-western society to make it look more progressive in terms of this model, this future model that we’d like to introduce to the western world. The writing opposes the Leftist Project has done extremely well and unstoppable. May stop at some future point when the western world is going to be repopulated by non-westerners who have no committment to Leftist propositions. At that point, all bets will be off. We’re not talking about the Marxist/Leninist left. The cold war brought an end of the garrison state, reactionary geriatric form of socialism. That is not what the Left is. The Left exists in the United STates, that the US previews this model. It is multicultural. It is bureaucratic. It uses public administration to make us like each other and to create a world where we constantly fight against discrimination, hate speech, hate thought, and which we use all public institutions, particularly public education to carry this on. For success of the Left’s triumph is the growth of public administration. Everything else is ancillary or derivative from public administration. I must say I am a political determinist. Culture is shaped by public administration. It pays for culture. It educates people. It passes antidiscrimination laws. You cannot separate culture from the modern democratic welfare state. Society is being constantly reshaped by the state, not the medieval state, not the american federal government of 1820, but the state that reaches into the lives of all its people, one that you can never vote out of office because both political parties are an extensions of the state, the authorized national parties. After the second world war when the Americans re-educated the Germans, in order to have democracy Germans must be instructed in democracy. There are to be X number of parties which correspond to the American political parties, and there’s to be a large public administration which will re-educate the Germans. This is the model that established itself in teh US where Americans feel free then to export the countries they defeated in war and in which they’re going to re-educate. The Americans really preview this public administration committed through social engineering of the creation of a pluralistic society and replaced by multiculturalism in the last 20 years. Not against natural pluralism. Spoke fondly of the Hautpsut Empire. American project is about bringing as many people in as you can and then socializing them to the state. 13-minute mark. One of the events that is misunderstood and helps the Left take power is the Cold War. IT was very popular to describe anti-communism as an ideology of the right or the far-right. The right were in favor of prosecuting the Cold War and against the Soviet Union. Later the Civil Rights issue was a secondary issue. Civil Rights Act was passed predominantly by Republicans. Even when the democrats were the party of segregation in the United States. But Civil Rights issues were not as important, as one American conservative, James Burden speaks of a “protracted conflict” which is a struggle against Soviet Communism. National Review was about communism and anti-communism; this was the overriding issue. It was not about whether the government should pass laws dealing with discrimination against women, whether there should be affirmative action for gays, whatever, you know, those things that define our politics now. It was simply a foreign policy issue. And I’ve met some people who are profoundly conservative on domestic issue but whom I considered pinkos or radicals because they were soft on the Soviets. For most of Gottfried’s life, he considered George Kennan, one of the most conservative figures in American intellectual life, to have been a LEftist because he was soft on the Soviets. The anti-communis side will be taken over by the Left, by the anti-communist Left, and becomes an extension of what is America’s Liberal Internationalism which goes back to Woodrow Wilson and the first WW. IT based on the view that the UNited states is to bring democracy to other countries, that American foreign policy is to served democratic missionary ends. And it sounds like Bolshevism or French Jacobinism. But this is not to be done in the name of Bolshevik Revolution or the French Revolution but in the name of American [Democracy] values. By the 1970s, the dominant form of anti-communism becomes liberal internationalism. Pope Pius XII who stood up and proclaimed against the communists. But Anti-communism, when it was unknown to many Europeans became in the United States the ideology or the carrier of liberal internationalism. Civil Rights Acts civil rights laws were justified as being necessary to win the war against the Soviets. This was an argument made by LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, Harry Jaffa, and in the National REview by the 1970s. In Europe we have the same kind of Anti-communism becomes more and more identified with the anticommunist Left. Or the left center, not the far left, but the left center. And you have the labor movements, Humphrey, Scoop Jackson democrats [aka, Henry Martin “Scoop” Jackson, US Senator 1953-1983], neoconservatives, who ended up taking over the conservative movements and who are part of the liberal internationalist, Zionists, pro-labor union, moderate Left and certainly anti-Soviet or anti-communist. But this is inevitable because the political momentum is on the Left. So much so that by the time that you get what is viewed as a conservative revolution with the election of Ronald Reagan, there’s no revolution of any kind, simply a brief interruption in the continued movement leftward in American government and American society. There is no conservative revolution of any kind that occurs in the United States. But the liberal media is happy to run with this and so are conservative think tanks because people are going to give you money to see you carry out a conservative revolution. You can’t say no we failed. Or we didn’t even try, they’ll give you less money. So you see we carried out a revolution, you just didn’t notice it. The official liberal, neo-conservative view in the U.S. is that there was a great conservative view in the United States in the 1980s. And it continues with the election of George H. W. Bush, four more years of the counter-revolution and it resumed with George W. Bush. Picking up a French newspaper, maybe Le Monde, or Le Monde de Dumair, explaining that the thinker who most influenced George W. Bush was the Catholic counter-revolutionary, Joseph Numesc [spelling? I’ve never heard of him, nor can find anything about him. Could it be Josef de Maistre? Boy, my French is bad.] looking at this, thinking George W. Bush is kind of a fraternity member who drank too much, who politically always sounds like a Leftist, where he’s talking about global democracy, women’s rights, . . . Even Christianity is usually comes down to giving everybody democracy and human rights. How is he Josef de Maistre? But for the French, Secularism is such a dominant, militant ideology, that any American or reborn Christian is automatically identified with the counter-revolution in France. The European press and liberal press will play along happily because the Right has proclaimed what is really inaction and nothing in terms of a counter-revolution, to get counter-revolution. The Left is able to continue winning all the culture and political wars but claiming either its a stalemate or they’re losing because a counter-revolution is taking place. Most interesting thing is that American militarism is Leftwing militarism. It is not the militarism of the fascist movement. Not the Catholic counter-revolution in Spain. It is nothing but pure Jacobinism. It is wars carried out to spread human rights, now to women’s rights. Why these things should be considered part of the Right is unclear unless someone looks at American party politics. There you discover that the campaigns to spread democracy are only attacked as fascistic, right-wing enterprises when Republicans undertake them. When Bush does it, it is fascistic, it is evil, it is the Catholic counter-revolution, or whatever. When Obama comes into office and carries on the same war, we all have to get behind him and help. Which has been pretty much the view that I’ve been encountering in the American liberal press. There’s one black journalist, Herbert Matthew, said “It’s really a shame how people are not volunteering for the military.” This was after Obama came. Before that he was screaming against this, saying “Not that I am defending these wars but now that we’re in these wars, we should not embarrass President Obama.” All of this is a function of party politics. The Left is not inherently pacifistic now any more than it ever was in the past. I remember once hearing George McGovern who deplored the bloodshed in the Vietnam War say “He bombed Salzburg and other cities in Europe during WWII and he’s proud of his record. Well, he murdered a civilian population. Well that was okay because he was fighting fascism. When you fight communism, it’s a different matter. Then you’re supposed to weep over every communist guerilla that is lost. A lot of what is seen as the anti-militarism of the Left is purely for show. And it depends whether their guy is in power or whether their guy is out. And in the United STates there’s also a tendency to identify conservatism with the Republican Party and Liberalism with the Democratic Party. This is mostly arbitrary. The Republicans repeal very little of what the Democrats do. Though occasionally use the rhetoric of the Christian Right in order to pull in the votes of Protestant leaders in the United States. And possibly get anti-abortion Catholics to vote for them. Once their in power, they change very little, and they typically manage the programs of the other side. The problem is that for journalistic purposes in the United States, dividing up people into Republican and Democratic camps is very useful. This way all politics is structured, will be centered around these two parties, and their alterations. Which one is elected at a particular time. And then the International Media will proclaim Democrats to be Progressives and Liberals and Republicans to be counter-revolutionaries. The overall picture is very different. The Left continues to win on the cultural and social front, and the indispensable means by which it does this is through public administration. How do you engage this? Destroy the state. I say this not as an anarchist, not as a libertarian but simply someone who doesn’t want to see the Left win all the battles. The State must go down. What it must be replaced by is local government, distributive power, and I’d be very happy to see the United States divide up into 7 or 8 or 20 parts. I think the American Empire is a Leftist Project that also accelerates Leftist changes at home. And that is the main reason I am opposed to it. Now this is different than saying that this country should not protect itself against enemies. I’m all in favor of doing that . . . real enemies. And I’m not in favor of changing the opinions of Afghans about gender relations, something which seems to obsess George Bush. Sadly enough to devote the remainder of his life . Important that state power be controlled, power be decentralized. The attempt by Ron Paul and people of that ilk to play down social and cultural issues is correct. You’re not going to win any points on that, you don’t even want to raise those issues, and they been used in a totally demagogic fashion. The Republican Party pulls out the social card every time it wants to vote out some poor rube in Iowa or something. They make very few differences and the Left continues to win. The only practical solution is decentralization, and decentralization that would allow different regions, different communities to do what they want. That does not mean you’ll have anti-abortion laws passed across the country. Point that John O. Sullivan raised about Poland. Once Poland became part of the European. danger of international bureaucratic class.
Nation states have been replaced with regional public administrations.
As to immigration in Europe and the United States will continue to go on and on. Decentralization can have an effect on immigration only decentralized states can control immigration. But as it stands now, this international public administration is the entity who is controlling a free flood of strangers into our countries. You break off and you also insist who has a right to come and live in your region. Absolutely indispensable to retain these regional liberties and regional communities. Continuing march of the Left through all of our political and social institutions.