7 October, 2008
I had a fascinating conversation with a young lady the other day. She is originally from Germany and has spent a great deal of her life going back and forth from Germany to the US, if I understand correctly. She has just the faintest hint of a German accent but is completely fluent in English -- so much so that I often forget she is originally a German citizen. I happened to mention that I had, not long ago, begun writing a technology column for the "right-wing website WorldNetDaily."
"So, you're a fascist?" she asked innocently. To her credit I think she honestly was willing to accept this datum and simply file it away. Had I said, "Oh, yes, I'm very active in my local chapter of the Junior Neo-Fascists," she may well have smiled, nodded, and thought nothing more of it. Instead, because I am used to right-wing thinkers being summarily and incorrectly characterized as "fascists" by leftist ideologues, I said what I always say.
"No," I paused, "but many people don't stop to realize that fascism is a product of left-wing thought."
"No it's not," she said quickly. "Fascism is right-wing."
"Actually no," I said, "it's an outgrowth of left-wing ideology." She became very agitated before we realized just how deeply entrenched and synonymous the terms "right-wing" and "fascism" are in Germany, where the many neo-Nazi groups are generally mischaracterized culturally as "far right wing" organizations.
The best book I've read to date on the topic of leftism (and the growth of fascism from it) is Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. In an interview with Salon magazine, Goldberg argues,
There's this [erroneous] idea that the further right you go the closer you get to Nazism and fascism, and the further left you go the closer you get to decency and all good things, or at least having the right intentions in your heart... ...To sort of start the story, the reason why we see fascism as a thing of the right is because fascism was originally a form of right-wing socialism. Mussolini was born a socialist, he died a socialist, he never abandoned his love of socialism, he was one of the most important socialist intellectuals in Europe and was one of the most important socialist activists in Italy, and the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I.
...Originally being a fascist meant you were a right-wing socialist, and the problem is that we've incorporated these European understandings of things and then just dropped the socialist. In the American context fascists get called right-wingers even though there is almost no prominent fascist leader -- starting with Mussolini and Hitler -- who if you actually went about and looked at their economic programs, or to a certain extent their social program, where you wouldn't locate most if not all of those ideas on the ideological left in the American context. [emphasis added]
What Golberg is saying is that if you examine the actual content of the policies enacted, and the actions taken, by history's famous fascists, they were left-wing ideologues, not right-wing extremists. In the American context, then, the political spectrum starts with totalitarian socialism at the far left and ends with anarchism (or some form of anarcho-capitalism) at the far right. The far left represents government control; the far right represents the complete absense of government. Where you fall on that spectrum can thus be charted according to some central tenets that are all consistent with those notions of government or its absence.
A lot of people start mewling that we shouldn't put "labels" on people, when ideological labels are invoked, because this is somehow judgmental and limiting. I've never understood this complaint. Every word is a label. A word represents an idea, and those ideas have meaning. If you don't like the label applied to you, what you're really saying is you don't like the meaning it conveys. Either you can be accurately described in that manner or you cannot. Denying the reality of it changes nothing.
Let us look at the defining tents of left-wing and right-wing beliefs. These are commonly accepted ideas, commonly described as respectively leftist and "rightist" in popular culture. Most reasonable people can agree that the tenets described correspond to the sides of the political aisle to which I've assigned them. If we cannot agree on that, you need to take some time to consider, very seriously, what you actually believe and why.
| LEFT-WING IDEOLOGY | RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGY |
| Believes the United States is part of a global community and that it should seek the approval of and cooperate with the other nations of the world. | Believes in the concept of American exceptionalism; puts America first and believes all other nations' interests are and should be second to the interests of the United States. |
| Advocates some form of limited, mixed, or total socialism, wherein earnings are redistributed through confiscatory taxation in order to accomplish egalitarian social-leveling goals to varying degrees. | Advocates some form of mixed or total capitalism, typically laissez-faire, wherein individuals retain as much of their earnings as possible. |
| Supports controls on firearms and other tools and weapons in an effort to make society safer; may support a complete ban on some or all personal weapons. | Opposes "gun control" and other laws restricting the possession and carry of personal arms. |
| Supports gay rights and gay marriage. | Opposes making homosexuality a protected class of "rights" and opposes gay marriage. |
| Opposes military spending and more often than not opposes whatever wars the nation wages. | Supports military spending and more often than not supports the wars the nation wages. |
| Supports speech codes and other facets of political correctness on the grounds that some speech is hurtful or hateful. | Opposes political correctness as the establishment of thoughtcrime and an infringement on free speech. |
| Believes government must be secular and that religion has no place in the public sector. | Believes freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. May or may not support legislation of various morality issues. |
| Supports abortion. | Opposes abortion. |
| Believes the Constitution is a "living document." | Believes in strict construction of the Constitution. |
These are generalizations, and the average individual may display
several departures therefrom. If your personal beliefs
correspond
to both columns equally, you possess a very conflicted and paradoxical
personal philosophy. If, however, your beliefs fall more
often in
one column than in the other, you are, generally speaking, a rightist
or a leftist depending on with which column you agree more frequently.
This established, what is the justification for these distinctions? We first must stipulate the political scale we are using, which I have. I will reiterate here.
TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT CONTROL <-----------------------> MINIMIZED GOVERNMENT/TOTAL ANARCHY
At the left end of the spectrum, we place total government control, and at the far right, we place total anarchy -- the absence of government. Very few people who take the time to discuss these concepts are completely at one extreme or the other; while the average person's beliefs generally put him or her on one side or the other, very people actually advocate the beliefs held at the far ends. Let's take the table already cited and replace the tenets with justifications for their placement in their columns.
| LEFT-WING IDEOLOGY | RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGY |
| Global Community: A belief in government control is naturally compatible with a belief in meta-government (such as the United Nations), a government control uniting lesser units of government control. | American Exceptionalism: A belief in individuality and individual liberty is naturally compatible with a belief that the United States stands alone (and that it should stand alone). |
| Socialism: A belief in government control is naturally compatible with a belief in centralized economic planning, and in transferring wealth from haves to have-nots in order to assist the latter. | Capitalism: A belief in individual liberty is naturally compatible with the capitalist system, which trades value for value and rewards only producers. |
| Living Constitution: Given the severe limitations on government power imposed by the Constitution, a belief in government control is naturally incompatible with struct construction of the Constitution. The Constitution must therefore be reinterpreted. | Strict Construction: The Constitution is a forceful set of limitations on government control and a protection of individual liberties. A belief in individual liberty is thus best supported by strict construction of the Constitution. |
| Gun Control: A belief in government control is naturally compatible with the belief that private individuals cannot be trusted with the means to impart force. | Second Amendment: A belief in individual liberty is naturally compatible with the belief that individuals should be able to protect their own lives and property with force. |
| Gay Rights: A belief in government control is naturally compatible with the belief that citizens are homogenous and interchangeable, regardless of religious belief or moral standards. | Traditional Families: A belief in individual liberty is naturally compatible with the notion that individual faith and morals factor into decisions of what to approve and affirm. |
| Anti-Military: A belief in global community is naturally antithetical to the use of military force to impose national will on other nations. | Pro-Military: A belief in American exceptionalism is naturally compatible with the belief that military force may have to be imposed on international neighbors, in defense or preemptively. |
| Politically Correct: A belief in governemnt control is compatible with the restriction of free speech and thought for the accomplishment of egalitarian goals. | Politically Incorrect: A belief in individual liberty is naturally incompatible with restrictions on free speech. |
| Secular Government: A belief in government as the highest authority is naturally incompatible with a belief in some religious faith as the supreme authority. | Freedom of Religion: A belief in individual liberty is naturally compatible with the belief that government should not interfere in the expression of one's religious faith, even in public. |
| Supports abortion: Support of the "living document" interpretation supports finding within the Constitution support for protection of freedoms not defined or implied within the Constitution, such as abortion rights. | Opposes abortion: A belief in individual liberty is naturally compatible with the belief that unborn children are individuals with individual rights in utero. |
Given these definitions and the support thereof, it is my assertion that left-wing ideology -- leftism -- is bulit on irrationality. What is irrationality? To be irrational is to contradict reality (to be illogical or unreasonable), to be self-destructive, and, ultimately, to advocate (or to actually do) harm to others as a logical conclusion of your stated and expressed philosophy (which means regardless of whether you are aware of the ultimate or unintended consequences of your ideas). Let us examine each of the tenets described herein.
At the national level, one must put one's national interests first. To do otherwise is to behave in a self-destructive manner, because it is to elevate the interests of other country's citizens above your own. What logical person would do this? The emotional criticism of this attitude is that it is selfish -- but of course this is what people who say when they wish you to trade your interests for theirs. The only logical course of action for an American citizen is to uphold American exceptionalism.
Collectivist economics divorce producers from the product of their labors. To redistribute wealth for the accomplishment of "social leveling" goals (egalitarianism) is, therefore, to deny reality. First, socialism denies reality by forcing this division separating producers from what they produce. More importantly, however, socialism is almost always a failure at the large scale, because the level of totalitarian government control it entails usually fosters corruption, despotism, and even atrocity. For every peaceful socialist nation (like Sweden) there are multiple examples of totalitarian socialist tyrannies (like Cuba, the Soviet Union, and Communist China).
For the Constitution (or any written document) to have meaning, it must mean what it says. The Constitution can only be a "living document" in that provision has been made to amend it. To treat the document as a malleable, ever-changing, "living" thing, wherein one may find meanings not explicitly stated, or find ways to circumvent prohibitions explicitly outlined in the Constitution, is to deny reality by seeing what is not there and denying what is clearly written there. The "living document" approach is thus fundamentally irrational.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly prohibits infringement of the citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Support for any infringement of this right is to deny reality (and also to deny the fundamental natural right of self-defense, which is self-destructive).
Homosexuality is a mental disorder and, until relatively recently, was categorized as such by the psychological establishment. While it is a benign mental disorder, claiming that it is perfectly normal and/or natural is to deny biological reality.
The nation's military is the mechanism through which self-defense is achieved at the national level. To view your nation's military as evil, or to demoralize its troops by criticizing their missions, is to attack your own country's ability to defend you. This is a self-destructive and thus irrational act.
Political correctness -- speech codes and codes of conduct that have no bearing on what is legal -- is an intellectual form of tyranny, through which reality is denied. Political correctness dictates that to express an idea (or to express it in a certain way) is somehow emotionally hurtful or otherwise socially unacceptable. Because the speaker has no control over the emotions of the audience, and because emotions are not actually tools of cognition, It is irrational to censor the expression of ideas on these grounds. (It is also a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.)
The United States Constitution clearly protects freedom of religious expression. It does not purge religious expression from the public sector, and no "wall of separation" exists within the document as written. Strict construction of the Constitution renders such an interpretation unsupportable and thus irrational because it is not contained within the document.
One may only justify abortion in two ways: Either the aborted fetus is not yet a "person," or the aborted fetus is a person but killing that person is acceptable for some reason (perhaps because that person is deemed "unwanted"). Because life begins at conception (the biological process that begins with the fertilization of an egg invariably ends in the birth of a human being if the process continues undisturbed and uninterrupted), any attempt to deny that abortion is the taking of a human life is fundamentally irrational and denies reality. If one admits that abortion is the taking of a human life, one is attempting to justify murder, which is also irrational.
In all things, "the devil is in the details." There are, most certainly people reading this who are very angry to have their beliefs categorized as they are here. I would challenge you, however, to stop and examine your personal philosophy for consistency. You have one, after all; even if you don't believe so, and even if you've never thought about it, your belief system is your philosophy. That philosophy can be rational or irrational, and it can lean left or right. It is my assertion, as described herein, that to be rational your philosophy must correspond more often than not to the ideas I have outlined as "right-wing" herein. The alternative is to be illogical and self-destructive. >>