THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume V, Issue # 94, April 4, 2003
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
IMMOVABLE OBJECTS & IRRESISTABLE FORCES:
LEFTIST POLITICAL THINKING REVISITED
By Paul Walfield
The political thinking of the Left--"Progressive," or "Progressivist," political thinking-- tends to shy away from absolutes and deal in relative positions. Right or wrong is a mat- ter of whose shoes you happen to be standing in, and good or evil is simply too vague a concept to be taken seriously.
In recent times, it has become more and more evident that those on the political Left and those on the political Right have become the proverbial immovable object and irresistible force.
Many commentators and pundits who have attempted to resolve the matter have fallen into two camps--those that see the differences as merely ideological and those who view the differences as a sophisticate/naivete matter. The ideological differences are obvious if you subscribe to the machinations of one over the other, e.g., the Left seeks to achieve harmony between all peoples, and the Right seeks to dominate the less fortunate. Of course, the opposite portrayal can be argued and on equally plausible footing.
To a lesser extent, the explanation by some on the Right is that the Leftists are so im- mersed in their own doctrines that they are unwilling to see the shortterm consequences of their preaching, let alone the longterm outcome, and this unwillingness to see the con- sequences or outcomes speaks of the naivete of those strongly entrenched in the Leftist ideological position. But that misses the point.
It may well be that the hard Left does, in fact, see the shortterm and longterm conse- quences of their preaching as desirable, yet unmentionable. The hard Left may simply enjoy the label of naivete, believing they are far more clever then their critics. Yet, that does not explain how, when confronted with facts and a picture, the Left simply chooses to trudge ahead with a seeming purposeful abandon of reality and truth. At first glance, it may be that the idea of "truth," being in the eye of the beholder, is neither sufficient nor sought-after. However, when one reviews a typical encounter between the Left and reality, instead of a confrontation, there is a sidestep and a diversion by those on the Left.
The question then is, why? If their doctrines and ideology were able to withstand scru- tiny, there would be no need for diversion. If not, why do they hold that ideology with such tenacity? The answer seems clear. They do not know, regardless of the facts pre- sented, that the foundation they stand on is defective.
An effective argument can be made showing that a lack of intelligence may be the root cause of the Left's inability to assimilate reality or pragmatism into their consciousness. However, that would be politically incorrect and too general. A better argument can be made regarding the thought processes of the two sides.
First, we need to exclude from the explanation the hard-core Communists and Anar- chists, as well as those with ulterior motives. Their motives are transparent to all, except the Left.
Nowadays, virtually everyone is aware of the concept of right/left brain thinking. The "left brain" concerns itself with logical, sequential and rational analysis, and views events and people from an objective stance, and as a conglomeration of distinct parts.
The "right brain" concerns itself with a random, intuitive, and holistic analysis of events and people. The "right brain" tends to synthesize rather than analyze, and to do so from a subjective point of view, seeing the "whole," rather than its parts.
Virtually no one is completely right or left brain, but nearly everyone subscribes to the influence of one over the other. If we are to accept the concept of right and left brain, which most scholars on the subject do, the rest is obvious.
The political Right debating the political Left with any hope of reconciling differences is unattainable. While the Right (left brain) political thinker focuses on logical analysis and truth, The Left (right brain) political thinker concentrates on aesthetics, feelings, and imagination. No amount of reason, even if it is overwhelming, can penetrate the right brain of the political Left. While it is a bit sardonic to dwell on the reality that the left brain is primarily the Right's raison d'etre, and vice versa, only the Left will so settle without further examination.
While it is a bit more complicated to explain how so many can rest their vision of the world on concepts that are easily debunked, it is a starting point.
Anyone with even a modicum of reality can see the difference between defensive actions against terrorism as qualitatively different from the initial act of terrorism. Yet, many on the Left will equate the American action in Afghanistan on a par with terrorist acts. The Left will argue that dead innocents really don't see a difference, that they are just as dead, whether by the Taliban or by American warplanes. The holistic view of the situa- tion, that dead is dead, cannot see its parts and/or its proximate cause. Regardless of any professed common ground, there is no possible meeting of the minds on any ultimate issue.
Another example would be the common arguments made by the Left's Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Maureen Dowd against the war in Iraq. Ms. Dowd, in her New York Times column on March 10, 2003, admitted: "Saddam Hussein is a murderous dictator. Check. Saddam has made a mockery of the inspections process. Check. He either has developed or is inclined to develop weapons of mass destruction. Check. No world leader has ever so clearly asked to be punished by the world community."
In other words, Ms. Dowd, as being representative of the political Left and right brain thinking, can ostensibly accept the reasons given by the political Right for wanting to rid the world of a brutal tyrant. Yet, she and her brethren refuse to accept actual action taken to do what they say they see a need for. Why? Well, it appears that the reasons to not take action are all over the spectrum. Generally, however, they appear to all to manifest the same theme that action will lead to violence, which will lead to injury and death, but they also seem to abhor America benefiting from such action.
The bottom line appears to be a kind of equitable estoppel. America, as led by President Bush and his Republican administration. has not been nice. Because they have not been nice, they (as opposed to an acceptable administration) do not have the right to wage war against tyrannical regimes. Or, if there is a right, who are "we" (regardless of adminis- tration) to impose our morality or way of life (constitutional democracy) on others.
The right brain of the Leftists cannot separate end results from the means to get there. If the means in any way lead to a result that causes a similar result sought from others, it, in effect, nullifies any good that might, in the long run, result from that endeavor, no matter how inconsequential to the whole and end. If you hurt someone who is hurting others, even large numbers of others, it is wrong, and there is no distinction because of overall numbers.
On the other hand, or rather in addition, morality, good, and evil are mere words and have no meaning, as they are subjective, open to interpretation, and absolutes that have no place in a world or nation that is diversified, at least according to the Left's right brain thinking. As such, freedom, constitutionalism, democracy, and equality cannot be "im- posed" on peoples that have none.
While it may be argued that a lack of self-esteem or a false sense of elitism on the part of Rightists unwilling to view human rights granted to those in the West as not necessari- ly being a good idea for those in the world that find themselves outside established con- stitutional democracies, it is more easily explained as simply a matter of the right brain thinking of the political Left not allowing absolutes or details to be taken into considera- tion.
Even during the current war, even when pictures and videos are shown, the political Left's right brain thinking cannot accept certain realities. While America fights on the battlefield in the deserts of Iraq, the Left cannot accept the truths exposed. The people of certain Iraqi towns have welcomed Americans and coalition forces as liberators. There are quotes repeated by imbedded journalists asking "what took you so long?" The Left does not accept that fact. Iraqi citizens of the town of Basra have risen up and are fighting alongside coalition forces against Saddam Hussein's military. That doesn't sway the Left.
The epitome of the Left's right brain thinking can be gleaned from the words and thoughts of documentary filmmaker Michael Moore at the Academy Award ceremonies. Mr. Moore insisted that his First Amendment right to free speech also contains the right not to be criticized by others, which, in effect, is denies others their right to free speech and adds a non-existent right to the Constitution.
Mr. Moore also does not accept the election of George W. Bush as President of the United States. He will not allow a "false election" to be seen as anything else but false, regardless of the factual and constitutional validity of the 2000 presidential election. While espousing the Constitution protecting his own rights, Mr. Moore will, in the same sentence, deny others their constitutional rights. It is simply a matter of the Left looking at the whole "idea" of what they see as constitutionally protected rights, while they can- not see the actual details of what is actually protected by the Constitution. The Left's right brain thinking envisions what should be, rather than what is.
Then there is Susan Sarandon. She, in a television commercial, declared that she wants to know "what did Iraq ever do to us." She, of course, does not really mean "us." Rather, she means herself. Obviously, Iraq tried to assassinate an American president, probably had a hand in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, actually fought a war against America in 1991, and has used rape, torture, murder, and intimidation to keep its citizens and neighboring countries in line.
But that did not directly affect, or more to the point, did not hurt, Ms. Sarandon or her ilk. The Left's right brain thinking will not allow details or individual effects to affect their notions of global good, which, to all intents and purposes, is a direct threat to the well-being of individuals. This, in spite of appearances, is not merely a detail, but rather an expansion of them as individuals to mean the world as a whole. While it may appear narcissistic, it is in reality merely the Left's right brain thinking being unable to accept details.
Simple naivete, intransigent ideologies, or even plain stubbornness will never explain a group's inability to articulate the other sides' arguments, and then systematically dis- credit those arguments. Yet, that is what the political Right in America faces when it confronts the political Left. A new tactic must be developed in order to expose the weaknesses and lack of plausibility of the Left's rants and diatribes.
This may simply consist of short, single notions of doctrine in the form of a single ques- tion, which directly contradicts the Left's counterpart. By remaining with individual parts of an idea, rather than the whole idea, the option to resort to a holistic view can be dashed. And like a house of cards, the Left's concepts will fall, and perhaps even they will see the ineffectiveness of their own arguments. Of course, this may be naive.
More on U.S. Constitutional Law & Political Philosophy
More on Liberals, Statists, Socialists, & Other Leftists
Paul Walfield is a freelance writer and member of the State Bar of California, with an undergraduate degree in Psychology
and post-graduate study in behavioral and analytical psychology. He resided for a number of years in the small town of
Houlton, Maine, and is now a California attorney. His articles appear in numerous periodicals and on numerous websites. He
has been the featured guest on KTSA News Talk Radio. CONTACT INFORMATION: Email:
paul.walfield@cox.net
Return to Top of Page
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE,
Volume V, 2003
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity