THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM
  
      
   6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled
   society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of
   our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can
   serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern
   society in general.
  
   7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century
   leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today
   the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be
   called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in
   mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types,
   feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and
   the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these
   movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing
   leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological
   type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by
   “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of
   leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
  
   8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less
   clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for
   this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate
   way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main
   driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling
   the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is
   meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of
   the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of
   the 19th and early 20th century.
  
   9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we
   call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of
   inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while
   oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of
   modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
  
  FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY
 
  
  
   10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings
   in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low
   self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies,
   defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend
   to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these
   feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
  
   11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said
   about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that
   he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is
   pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong
   to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are
   hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms
   “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an
   Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory
   connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents
   of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been
   attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal
   rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and
   insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftist
   anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about
   primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative.
   They want to replace the word “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem
   almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive
   culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that
   primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the
   hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)
  
   12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect”
   terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant,
   abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of
   whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from
   privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold
   among university professors, who have secure employment with
   comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white
   males from middle-class families.
  
   13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of
   groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American
   Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists
   themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit
   it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely
   because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with
   their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE
   inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).
  
   14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as
   strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women
   may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
  
   15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong,
   good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western
   civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The
   reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not
   correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West
   because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so
   forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in
   primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he
   GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points
   out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in
   Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the
   leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates
   America and the West because they are strong and successful.
  
   16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative”,
   “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc. play little role in the liberal and
   leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic,
   pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s needs for them,
   take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense
   of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy
   his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of
   competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
  
   17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to
   focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an
   orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope
   of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that
   was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
  
   18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science,
   objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally
   relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the
   foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the
   concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that
   modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians
   systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply
   involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack
   these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one
   thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent
   that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More
   importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they
   classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and
   other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings
   of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification
   of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or
   inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the
   concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are
   antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior
   because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or
   inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or
   blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is
   “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been
   brought up properly.
  
   19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of
   inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter,
   a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith
   in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but
   he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong,
   and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant
   behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings
   of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as
   individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the
   leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization
   or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
  
   20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists
   protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke
   police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be
   effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but
   because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist
   trait.
  
   21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion
   or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the
   leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle
   cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too
   prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.
   Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of
   benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.
   For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black
   people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or
   dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a
   diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal
   and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative
   action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take
   such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.
   Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems
   serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and
   frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black
   people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white
   majority tends to intensify race hatred.
  
   22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would
   have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse
   for making a fuss.
  
   23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate
   description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only
   a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

After hearing Pelosi in this video it dawned on me that what is known as the Christian Right should really be known as the Christian Left and the Secular Left should be known as the Secular Right.

Let’s assume that Pelosi was trained in a seminary of some worth, wherein she was taught the fundamentals of Christianity and possesses the knowledge necessary to exposit scripture to the world – especially the Gospel message of Jesus.  According to Pelosi it is now the job of the Church to preach from its pulpit the message of human worth and integrity that is found in Christianity.

This is a strange move on Pelosi’s part because not only is she suggesting a breach in the wall between church and state by exhorting pastors to sherpard their flock according to the edicts of the state, she is also saying that the Leftist message is grounded in the teachings of Jesus – in essence Jesus is a Liberal. This is nothing new though and something that has been argued by the Left for years.  Despite the deabateableness of this position, I will give her and easy day on this point simply because it is not necessary to refute her theological exegesis to make my greater point.

The purpose of this post is to demonstrate just a small area where there is cognitive dissonance in the mind of the Left and the Right. I once had a professor who said that a theist who is interested in political consistency would inevitably find themselves casting votes for the Left, while consistent secularist would be in favor of individualism, free markets, limited government (or anarchy), etc.- and I think he is correct.

So then, I would like to know what the Left and the Right think in regards to this claim. Can such things as human dignity and value be held rationally by a political system grounded in a worldview that can in no way account for such things? Can a “dog-eat-dog” mentality hold together in light of a moral teacher that was opposed to such things (assuming that Pelosi is a theologian of note)? Is Pelosi right? Should conservatives show up in November ready to pull the lever in favor a liberal candidate based on their committment to Jesus? Furthermore, is Pelosi a Christian?  If not, how can she and others like her maintain their committment to the Leftist ideology (political philosophy of niceness) without the lessons/commitment of Jesus as axiomatic?

I think this is a fair line of questioning based on Liberals and Neo-Cons recent slamming of Rand Paul in the media and their demand for consistency within his political philosophy. What say you liberals and neo-cons…..

What is surprising, and forsaken by the media in the discussion, is the burden of proof. The media has placed libertarians with the burden of reconciling the conundrum of private business owners and the Civil Rights Act without first establishing why the private owner does not have the right to discriminate at their leisure. It is simply taken as axiomatic that people are entitled to the services on account of their being human [?]. However,  this is an unargued for assumption on the part of the media.  Of course they will respond, “The Civil Rights Act is our axiom…..and thats all the arguing we need!”  But this begs the question as to what axiom they were appealing to when the civil rights act was passed in 1964.  It isn’t clear to me how being human necessitates, or entitles, anyone to the work and labor of another individual. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the media puppets and the federal government to demonstrate why they have the right to refuse rights to the private business owner in favor of the hoards of disgruntled consumers. 

A second point of contention is the dishonesty of such a line of reasoning.  The media is playing the ol’ stump the professor routine all the while remaining silent on their real presuppositions. They are presuppositionally committed, at their most mundane level of existence, to the demise of all things related to free markets. For example, suppose we were an all Black nation and the civil Rights Act was not an issue. Would they agree with a Black version of Rand Paul and his view on a  private business owners right to refuse service? The media acts as though were it not for the implications of Paul’s view they would be on board, but here at the Liberty Underground we know the score!

The last issue I will tackle focuses on the “is/ought” dichotomy that is woven into the fabric of political discourse. When Libertarians speak of free markets we mean that free markets “ought” to be the case in a society that presumably values the freedom of the individual. However, since our inception as a nation we have fought ‘tooth and nail’ over the rights of the individual being subordinate to the collective – the Statist just will not die. Hence, we find ourselves arguing what “ought” to be the case in light of what “is” the case, namely, statism. So when libertarians are asked to reconcile what “is” the case with what we think “ought” to be the case, we must refuse to incorporate the “is” into our “ought” – this is the Gotcha element. We should instead call into doubt the “is”, which is where I think Rand Paul is weak, and argue for our “ought.” This move turns the table on the statist placing them on the defensive and will expose their political ideologies and underlying presuppositions, which is tantamount to an intellectual temper tantrum.

 Regardless, I think it is a moot point to speak of rescinding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 simply because we are so assimilated now as a culture that if a small business owner wanted to segregate their store they would more than likely close their doors shortly thereafter due to some smarter businessmen that sells to all consumers that have money to buy product. 

 In essence, the free market kills discrimination.  Some contend that this is not the case and that is why the government had to intervene, thereby ending segregation. The fact is, in theory, the free market would have torn down racial barriers because someone’s pursuit of happiness would have outweighed what prejudices were held socially. Statist simply will not allow the “invisible hand” to run its course because they would be forced to concede their worldview.

Subsidize the Students, not the Teachers: A Response to Anne C. Lewis

In Students as Commodities, Anne C. Lewis lambastes those who would see teachers held accountable by market pressures and competition introduced into the public school system. With one pen-stroke, Lewis equates support for vouchers to Biblical fundamentalism; in another, she draws parallels between private education and cafeteria junk food. It is a common tactic among supporters of the failing status quo to overwhelm their detractors with a panoply of nonsensical and often misleading statements. Responding to such vehement blatherskitery requires patience, humor, and an ability to ignore the innocuous while demolishing the potentially harmful. I will here attempt to cut through the whirlwind of red herrings that Lewis throws out to protect her indefensible position on public education, which is namely that the state knows better than parents and family where children should be educated.

I really should be used to the moronic diatribes of militant anti-capitalists/Western/white/male/United States/etc. of leftists by now – after all, I’ve been in the university for a while. Yet when I read something as base and utterly inane as what Lewis has written, my gut still turns like a plastered zodiac in a time warp. If this were something that I had read in passing of my own volition, I would simply let it slide, but it was an assigned reading in an upper-level education course, and so I feel compelled to tear it apart. The question is where, in this squalid mess of semi-literate babble, I should begin.

Well, I think I’ll begin by blocking Lewis’ anemic jabs at the free enterprise system (which are collectively, I would venture, the real reason she wrote the piece, as it can boast no identifiable thesis). Lewis is no doubt clever enough to realize that her audience, being largely comprised of educators and education majors, are almost wholly ignorant of basic economic theory and history, and that she is working with thousands of blank slates in that department. Thus, it is not surprising to see her ridicule Milton Friedman, the great libertarian leader of the monetarist school of economics and a powerful proponent of school choice, in the second paragraph. Lewis asserts that Friedman and those of his ilk are in the process of destroying the public school system in order to replace it with one that will push to the fore the apparently erroneous “idea of salvation by competition,” despite “belated protests to the contrary.”

To begin at the end, it is worthy to note that the “belated protests to the contrary” are not coming from students or parents, but from teachers, administrators, and union halls. The push by Friedman and others to allow families to choose where their children will be educated is overwhelmingly popular among the consumers of education; it is the suppliers of education that find choice distasteful. It is one of the elementary axioms of economics that in order to benefit consumers, you subsidize consumer choice. To benefit suppliers, you subsidize those suppliers you choose and limit who can compete with them. So, if education exists to educate our children, rather than to provide comfortable teaching jobs with often lavish benefits, we should be subsidizing the consumer. In a nutshell, this is what vouchers are: they empower the educated and force the educators to serve the needs of their students.

Sounds reasonable, right? Not if you are a teacher, and especially not if you are a member of a teacher’s union. Those in the field of education are only now, after decades of political struggle, beginning to reap the rewards of power. The NEA, the largest union in the United States, has a political action committee that contributes more to political campaigns than all of the world’s oil companies… combined. In states that are most heavily unionized, such as New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, teachers enjoy benefits and protections that no professional in any other field enjoys. They are not subject to disciplinary action and are not held responsible when their students do not perform to minimal standards. It is difficult to imagine a doctor keeping his license if his patients never got well, or a mechanic staying in business if the cars he were charged with tuning up burst into flames blocks from the garage. Yet Lewis obstinately defends the right of teachers to remain cocooned from the consequences of their failures. That vouchers are overwhelmingly popular among the poor and minorities is not Lewis’ concern. Neither is the fact that they have drastically raised test scores of students wherever they have been implemented (see Washington, D.C., Houston, etc.). Never mind that the nation whose students score highest in the world, Finland, has a nationwide voucher system and has a per capita cost of education cost that is less than half of ours.

Everywhere market forces are let loose within education systems, cost drops and performance improves. This is what makes Lewis’ statement that “the underbelly of the voucher movement has nothing to do with helping poor families” so shameful. She further asserts that proponents of vouchers are usually “free-market philosophers and leaders of private enterprise who are often also associated with religious/political extremists.” Who knew that forcing schools to compete, in a rather Darwinian fashion, for the tax-funded dollars of poor families was a religiously and politically extreme idea?

Lewis did get one thing right, though: vouchers would mean the disintegration of the current public school system. Once the needs of students were met by teachers who were competing for the satisfaction of their parents, once scores went up and costs went down, once violence dropped and hope returned, politicians would be forced to dismantle the state monopoly of tax-funded education. The NEA does not want this, teachers do not want this, Lewis does not want this, and as a corollary they do not want what is best for students.