By: Eddie Clements
Saw a special the other night on The History Channel, â€œAfter Sputnikâ€. It reviewed in film and narration, including in-person guests, the days and months after the launch of the worldâ€™s first artificial object launched by man into space. Naturally, since it was launched by the Soviet Union during the heyday of the Cold War, the initial wonder of it all gave way to speculation about what would come next.
As one might expect, the U.S.S.R. portrayed the launch as the triumph of Communist Soviet Man over the running-dog capitalists and their lackeys elected to the democratic government. Dead serious at the time, of course, but easy to laugh at in retrospect; the Soviets didnâ€™t have much to brag about. Oh, they showed out in films, how much they produced in goods and grew on farms, but we knew they werenâ€™t producing what the smiling â€œsoviet peoplesâ€ said they were. However, this successful satellite launch was something everyone could see, and they talked it up how advanced in science and engineering they were. Another Soviet purpose of their launch was to intimidate and send a heavy-handed signal to the U.S. and the world: be afraid, be very afraid.
Then came a segment with the son of Nikita Khrushchev, who was Soviet Premier at the time of sputnik. He was going on about Communist superiority, the producers sharing with others, yada, yada, then Sergei Khrushchev says â€œjust like at the time of Christ, who said share with your brothers. So Jesus was the first Communist.â€ This caused my jaw to drop, then it occurred this is how atheists lecture the world about Christianity, a subject they do not understand. It kind of nailed down the thought that liberalism, the kind practiced in todayâ€™s U.S. and in other affluent western countries, is a religion to the liberals.
Understand this is not the classical definition of liberalism that is embraced by the Enlightenment, seeking to free manâ€™s mind, body, and soul. The liberalism of todayâ€™s western nations is not just to define freedom as protection of man from man, who will do evil absent legal or moral constraint. Instead it is the belief liberals should dictate terms to everyone else as to what people â€œshouldâ€ be and do. Freedom to liberals is freedom to share the rewards of success, whether participating in its success or not. Legal constraints replace moral constraints in those areas of interest in which it is possible to codify, such as environmental protection. This is necessary because voluntary constraints will not be practiced equally among business practitioners, resulting in competitive advantage of one over another due to lower costs. Speech and religion are areas of interest where constraint cannot be easily codified, due to protections under the Constitution. Artificial constraints have to be imposed, such as â€œpolitical correctnessâ€ and â€œhate speechâ€.
Note that both political correctness and hate speech apply to non-liberals only. This must be because others have standards which do not agree on these terms; the one defining the terms has won ninety percent of the argument. The argument of liberals has been framed as â€œequalityâ€ which must be derived through â€œfairnessâ€. The argument and its terms are accepted by mostly liberal broadcasters of widely disseminated information, the mainstream media. When the argument and its agreed-upon terms become widely and constantly publicized, it becomes status quo.
If modern-day liberalism as exhibited by the American left and like-minded people in Europe and elsewhere is a religion, the deity they worship must be: Equality. Never achievable in this world, doesnâ€™t exist now, never did, never will â€“ however it is defined, which could be argued at length. Equality is to liberals THE moral equivalent of Yahweh. If it were not, they might not go to such great lengths to quote the Christian Testaments as reasons in favor of their legislative wishes. Never mind that they have no understanding of what they are talking about; the goal is to persuade one to their side of the argument. Any tactic is acceptable, since it is for the greater good, achievement of â€œequality.â€
Religion is belief taken on faith. That is why liberals, here and elsewhere, are not swayed by facts that contradict their beliefs. Articles written by bloggers, syndicated columnists, political professionals, and others all pose questions as to why this or that argument doesnâ€™t seem to take with liberals. The answer must be belief in their faith. An experiment in Communism was run in the worldâ€™s largest country for seventy years and failed miserably. The Communist Manifesto neither realized its promise, nor did it even follow the script toward its expressed goals. That failure doesnâ€™t affect liberals. They continue to work toward taking from producers and redistributing toward non-producers, and an artificial equality, despite human nature which works against such a philosophy.
Barack Obama, the liberalsâ€™ messiah (though a false one, to be sure), expresses equality as the â€œachievement of perfectionâ€. Like all false prophets, he believes he alone holds the key. His election is to Democrats as the launch of Sputnik was to the Soviets: proof of their superiority. With a monumental hubris Obama and Democrats, the party of the American Apartheid, say they can bring salvation to the worldâ€™s suffering. Feh. One can be sure Democrats in Washington (and elsewhere, for that matter) will never approach anything like â€œequalityâ€ with those outside political circles. Democrat politicians avoid real work and living among â€œthe great unwashedâ€ like hypochondriacs avoid germs. Liberals among the populace mean one thing, but Democrat power-holders mean something else entirely. Only when liberals find out they have been duped will they realize they made a mistake and vote for others besides Democrats. Liberals have been used, blacks have been used, union members have been used, the economically and otherwise disadvantaged people have been used by Democrat opportunists to gain and hold onto power, so they could gather influence and riches unto themselves, often at the very expense of those they purport to uplift. The vast majority of Democratsâ€™ supporters receive a pittance in return, or even outright contempt. What have Democrats done for blacks except ruin their families, keep them impoverished, and force them into justifiable rage?
If Republicans want to gain these votes, they had better figure out a strategy to politically exploit the Democratsâ€™ greed and corruption, which is myriad and manifest. They havenâ€™t got off to a good start, failing to probe Obamaâ€™s cabinet nominees for their honesty. It should be easy making charges that might stick, given the willful nature of their transgressions such as those of the treasury secretary nominee. Democratsâ€™ failure of their institutional integrity offers no excuse to the Republicans to do the same. Republicans might bring up the fact that the great failure of the Soviet Union is an example of what could happen in a centrally-controlled government economy. They might also bring up facts like Democrat Franklin Raines walking away from Fannie Mae with, what, ninety million dollars? How is his CEO pay different from the CEO pay Congress proposes to control? Or is this the figure they had in mind? If so, why make any changes at all?
We are all taught not to make light of anyone elseâ€™s religion. Maybe thatâ€™s why liberals get so touchy about being called â€œliberalâ€; they think we are making fun of them. But Republicans should expose the liberals and their agenda for what it is and not what liberals think it is. Like the old Soviet Union, it is a sham, designed to keep opportunists in high cotton, while keeping the field hands in the field.