Evolution Of The Left

It is troubling how words and definitions of the Left change over time. For instance, the word liberal meant one thing at one time, then the left adopted it to soften the badgered progressive term. The word liberal so corrupted would never be the same.

Many of their terms do not mean what they once did. Their language evolved to suit their fancy. And people allowed it or we went along with it. We knew it but no one objected effectively. We all went on with it.

Here’s one of my own. A well-heeled liberal used to be one thing and now it is another thing entirely. It was a snobby liberal, usually a Democrat, who claimed to stand up for rights and working people but was caught up in institutionalized, ivory-tower hypocrisy. It was a dreamy person who thought they had the answers to all problems. The smart snobs.

Now a well-heeled leftist is not actually a liberal at all, in the traditional sense, but an anti-American zealot who’s only connection to working class is solidarity with socialism or communism. They only see working people as a political-power base.

Other than that, he or she has no relationship with working people.

Even apologizing for America is not good enough anymore. One must despise the roots of everything meaningful to American history or American identity. Doing so openly and loudly is the rule not the exception. They have posited everything in political disagreement is their enemy. Their duty is foisting that hatred on the rest of the country, until it all bends or conforms to their will. “Submit!”

We used to accept the well-heeled liberals as just wrong. Now Leftists have become the problem with almost everything because their ilk are embedded into every part of government or dysfunctional bureaucracy. But that is the nature of the modern radical.

Today there is no difference, politically, between the well-heeled Left and Democrats. They are collectively radicalized, organizationally or loosely, to oppose the foundations of the country. The US, and we, have become the problem and enemy to them. Anything that hurts the country they will support. A quick glance at recent hearings will confirm it. They do the bidding for violent protestors, BLM or antifa right in the US Capitol. Whatever constituency which sent them to DC is not even a distant concern.

But the fools may be those very people who did put them there and continue to keep them there. But the well-heeled certainly are not working for constituents or their interests. They have been cannibalized by the most radicalized elements in their party. Then the whole party base seems to follow them right down that hole.

So the two words that most offend me now are peaceful and protestors. That’s because those words have been so corrupted by leftists. Peaceful is not what we think it means and protestors do not fit a first amendment definition of protestors. They are revolutionaries. Willful marchers who do not know that are only fodder for their movement.

But I can play the language game, too. I’d like to rename them more appropriately. They are not really protestors; they are fauxtestors. Pretend protestors. Just as there is no truth to the peaceful adjective. When did terminology become so errant and controversial? Calling antifa, violence or looting “peaceful protestors” really takes the cake.

I’ll just call them fauxtestors and be done with it. They never evolve the other way.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

An egg is not a cantaloupe


Old Ground

I really was not going to say it because it is obvious to most conservatives and common knowledge, but apparently deserves repeating. Lib-progs are pushing revisions again. And again it is in the language and definitions department.

The first thing is the definition of classical liberalism. And by the way, it is not something conservatives run from or are unfamiliar with. This is old news I realize to conservatives. Yet it deserves repeating. Start with a definition

Wikipedia says:
“Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates individual liberties and limited government under the rule of law and stresses economic freedom.”

And from a white paper (National Center for Policy Analysis)

What Is Classical Liberalism?

by John C Goodman

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it’s the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

Let me skip and offer another excerpt:

“The Collectivist Notion of Rights”

It is worth noting that all forms of collectivism in the 20th century rejected this classical notion of rights and all asserted in their own way that need is a claim. For the communists, the needs of the class (proletariat) were a claim against every individual. For the Nazis, the needs of the race were a claim. For fascists (Italian-style) and for the architects of the welfare state, the needs of society as a whole were a claim. Since in all these systems the state is the personification of the class, the race, society as a whole, etc., all these ideologies imply that, to one degree or another, individuals have an obligation to live for the state.

Despite the fact that 20th century collectivists opposed the classical liberal concept of rights, very rarely did they attack the notion of "rights" as such. Instead, they often tried to redefine the concept of "right" in a way that virtually eviscerated any meaningful notion of liberty. For example, in his 1944 State of the Union Address, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for a "second Bill of Rights," which included the following:

·The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
·The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
·The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
·The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
·The right of every family to a decent home.
·The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
·The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
·The right to a good education.
Note that these rights are very different from the rights Locke, Jefferson and the Founding Fathers had in mind.

PDF here


So you can see a huge difference between an idea of limited government and the collectivists’ unlimited one. Basically that is the struggle we face. The founders had the idea of a limited government and understood that struggle. But the collectivists try to blur that line anytime they can. In essence, what we see today in Liberalism or progressivism is at odds with this limited approach. It is not the same thing. Though that does not stop progressives, under the guise of “Liberalism”, from trying to substitute their views for classical liberalism or the philosophy of the founders.

What brings it up?

Case in point: Alan Colmes has a new book out touting the greatness of liberals, and suggesting this progressivism today is one and the same as the classical liberalism concepts. At least this was the gist of the interview he did on it. He never used the word classical liberalism in making his brief case. He rather just lumped them together under the Liberal banner – i.e. under “thank a liberal”.

It is why I have tried to use a capital L in Liberal to denote the newer, different form. But this is not your forefather’s liberalism, in the “classical liberal” sense. (IOW, theirs is one based on positive obligations not negative ones.) Also most libertarians recognize this and often use classical liberalism correctly in explaining their views. It is the limited government approach. It is hard to mistake them for the same thing once you see the difference.

Though Liberals are busy muddying the waters to blur the lines. The progressive label came in, in the 20th century, which evolved into the Liberal label, and now they are back using the “progressive” term. To compound the ideology, it further expanded with the new wave of Liberalism from the 60’s or 70’s. It disturbs a lot of people, but that matters not to Lib-progs. The modern Left is fond of redefining words and applying their definitions. They are very adept at the process.

Reference: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism

But what the hey, he wrote another coffee table ornament for the venomous class warfare crowd.‎