Connect with us

California Literary Review

Liberalism, the Election, and the Republican Party

Non-Fiction Reviews

Liberalism, the Election, and the Republican Party

With President George W. Bush’s recent victory the Democratic Party-referred to in prior times as the “Democracy”-finds itself in disarray and denial, though the source of the myriad of weaknesses that afflict that political entity are really quite obvious.

Perhaps, the Democrats greatest flaw lies in their penchant to view society in terms of “victimization,” constantly on the look out for the proverbial oppressed minority, be it race, ethnic, sexual, or animal, that requires the federal regime “to put things to right.” Their response is inevitably a civil suit that challenges the status quo and is viewed by the citizenry as an attack on authority, “traditional or modern.” As much as liberals are appalled by “authority,” society, if it is to function in accordance with the nature of man, requires it. It is this particular aspect of liberalism, what Kenneth R. Minogue referred to in his seminal study, The Liberal Mind, as “libertarianism,” that requires “critical inquiry.” It is this inclination on the part of our liberal friends that threatens traditional mores, established prejudices, and the fundamental elements of a good society.

Liberals embrace a theory or number of theories that are simply incorrect. There is no “generic man,” while the “rationalist” definition of man fails miserably because of the “complex situation we are trying to explain.” For liberals, as Minogue correctly points out, are always searching the future to satisfy human “needs.” And, if history is any indicator, at least since the time of Franklin Roosevelt, these needs are never ending, and always require the heavy hand of the central state to implement the corrective measures. It was the Virginia democrat, John Randolph, perhaps one of America’s finest intellects (thought a bit of an eccentric) that opined, “Change is not reform!” Sadly, it is an axiom totally ignored by the left.

The intellectual left have long abandoned any belief in the immanent nature of God; indeed, they have rejected the Judeo-Christian God and the prescriptions, tenets, and discipline that defines the “core values” of western civilization. For example, their rejection of the concept of “Original Sin” has redefined man, not as having an inherently evil (or fallen) nature, but rather a creature that is capable of establishing a perfectible system. A lofty ideal, indeed, that explains their need for a society in constant flux, and it is this change that so appalls and disconcerts people. And, the sterile “new man” requires a central government eagerly willing to implement the proper tax schedules, programs, bureaucracies, and “education,” that will bring the glorious new tomorrow even closer to reality.ity.

But, the Democrats have failed at the polls, though not by much. And, the signal event of this political season was the temerity of San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom, who with a certain panache handed out “marriage” licenses to homosexuals and lesbians, thus flouting California state law, and the judicial fiat exercised by the Massachusetts Supreme Court who ordered the state legislature, at a time specific, to write law permitting the same illegal and unnatural unions. I believe it was these actions that alarmed and alerted the sleeping majority igniting a reactionary revolt that sent an estimated 8 million, additional, Bush supporters to the polls, costing Senator Kerry the election.ion.

In the end, Senator John F. Kerry, the most liberal senator, was a decidedly poor candidate. Building his campaign upon his Vietnam War record rather than his twenty year record in the United States Senate, he was almost immediately compromised by the Swift Boat Veterans whose service to their country may be better defined by their actions during this election than their heroism, under fire, in Vietnam. am.

The final reality, I think, is that liberalism did not lose this recent election. President Bush, as vilified, and hated as he is by the left, is no conservative, at least not in the traditional understanding. The president has surrounded himself with neoconservatives –perhaps, better defined as neoliberals-such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan, who have promoted a policy of “benevolent hegemony,” a policy which suggests that America can be secure from foreign attack because it provides “strategic benefits,” and, more importantly for the globalist neocons, the policy seeks to implement worldwide democratic reform. But, Woodrow Wilson’s slogan for World War I, “saving the world for democracy,” has the same pretentious ring to it as George Bush’s desire to “bring democracy to the Middle East.” The policy is antithetical to the founding generations’ much quoted axiom to engage in foreign trade but avoid foreign alliances and entanglements.

In the near future the Democrats will continue to track to the radical left and will continue their journey in the political wilderness. But, neither the Bush administration, nor any projected future Republican administration, threatens to reduce, undermine, or eliminate American statism.

Continue Reading
You may also like...

Robert C. Cheeks is a writer living in Ohio. Beyonce Net Worth

Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

More in Non-Fiction Reviews

Register or Login

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 24 other subscribers

Join us on Facebook



Follow us on Twitter

To Top
%d bloggers like this: