Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Satan is a liberal

Most of this post involves a discussion of what Jesus would think about things today. We had this discussion not too long ago, so I am just going to focus on a couple of paragraphs that I think represent the primary way in which Matt Walsh contributes to the erosion of public discourse.

Matt Walsh writes:

So, I think we  need to clarify that modern American liberalism, or ‘progressivism,’ is a particular ideology informed by the social, political, religious, and sexual philosophies of guys like Machiavelli, Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx — the ‘pillars of unbelief,’ as Peter Kreeft calls them. Contemporary Western liberalism — with its defense of abortion, gay ‘marriage,’ relativism, forced wealth redistribution, pornography, massive government, and its attacks on the family, faith, life, and liberty — is truly a unique abomination.
Dude, I appreciate the fact that you are reading, but you really need to find yourself some better sources of information. I had a bit of a giggle fit after reading the first sentence. I don't know who Peter Kreeft is, but he either has no knowledge of any of those figures, or he is willfully misleading his readers. The only one who could potentially, in any logical way, be connected to any strand of progressivism is Marx (most progressives, however, are not remotely Marxist).  But... Nietzsche???  That is HI-larious. Nietzsche favors the aristocracy and despises the masses; he upholds notions of racial superiority; and he believes women represent the very worst traits of humanity. In fact, Nietzsche is in many ways the exact opposite of Marx. How they can be lumped together as the pillars of anything I do not understand. (Epistemologically, Nietzsche is also in direct conflict with Kant... though I suppose if I were to start listing all the ways this list is nonsensical, it would take me a while...)

As for the rest of the paragraph, here is the problem, Matt. You are seeing liberalism, or progressivism, as one homogenous thing. But it isn't. Just to pick from your list of issues - views on pornography vary widely, as do beliefs about the exact role and most effective mechanisms of the welfare state (or what you misleading dub "forced wealth redistribution"). Relativism? First, there are several different types of relativism. Second, the meaning of these types of relativism vary and are shaped by internal academic debates in particular academic disciplines - thus, cannot be understood apart from very specific contexts - and in a number of cases are associated with the conservative positions in the discipline rather than the more progressive views. I have found that conservative religious apologists use the term "relativism" in an extremely inaccurate, intentionally misleading way to set up false oppositional points of view. This has been a bonanza for them, it seems. However, there is definite diversity among liberals and progressives in their epistemological and cultural reasoning.

A large number of people who identify as liberal or progressive are Christian. And also every other religion, and non-religion. Some reliably support foreign intervention, while others reliably do not. As I mentioned before, views on the role of the federal government vary widely. Some are rich, some are poor, some are educated, some buy too easily into conspiracy theories. Some are even racist, or sexist, or homophobic.

The arguments you are making about liberals are as ridiculous as if some liberal blogger lumped together David Duke, C.S. Lewis, Van Mises, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Project for a New American Century as the cornerstones of modern conservativism. It makes no sense. Many different and incompatible things fall under the umbrella of modern conservativism just as many different and incompatible things fall under the umbrella of modern liberalism.

Creating a simplistic Us vs. Them dichotomy is neither helpful nor accurate. This is why people are justified in saying that you are divisive. And uninformed.

....

Jesus was not a liberal.

Lucifer, on the other hand, probably fits the bill.

After all, modern liberalism is nothing if it isn’t the worship of self. It is an ideology that places self fulfillment, pleasure, and convenience above everything. Liberalism bows to no one but its own reflection (and foreign bureaucrats, in the case of Barack Obama). Liberals believe that our personal desires are the ultimate arbiter, which is why life can be destroyed and institutions like marriage twisted and obliterated, all to serve the one god: self.

I threw this in here to make one point. Actually, "worship of the self" is a principle most closely aligned with the very philosophies/movements with which you identify (or have in the past). For example, as someone who has supported the tea party, surely you must know that Ayn Rand - whose entire doctrine was based on worship of the self - is one of the most revered thinkers of that movement. The legacy of valorization of self-interest is seen most prominently in libertarian thinking, not progressivism.

13 comments:

  1. I totally did a double take at that last paragraph too.....Matt has written about how much he likes Ron Paul and libertarianism in the past, so I don't get how he can make such a statement like that and not acknowledge Ayn Rand (probably because it would weaken his argument).

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The legacy of valorization of self-interest is seen most prominently in libertarian thinking, not progressivism. "

    Sorry, this statement is just flat-out wrong. Your are terribly misinformed about libertarian thinking if this is your viewpoint. I suggest you do considerable additional research on the matter before you spout off another falsehood such as this one. The root of libertarian thinking is in the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle), which condemns coercion in all human interaction. There is nothing about a philosophy that demands people mind their own business/affairs and leaver others alone that glorifies self-interest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mule, sir, you base your attacks far too much on assumption and what appears to be repressed hostility. You started a torrent of dismal replies due to your own misunderstanding.

      "There is nothing about a philosophy that demands people mind their own business/affairs and leaver others alone that glorifies self-interest." - Rational self-interest, in the context Bella was using, is not to be confused with apathy or dog-eat-dog apocalyptic survival. More than likely it was meant to convey the definition pertaining to economics. In short: affinity for capitalism, live and let live so that I can attempt to attain as much wealth as possible, especially with no regulation or government interference, making decisions that largely benefit me and my social/society success, money money money etc. If you say that libertarians do not think in such a manner, Mule, then you'd be a very mendacious person. I spent years dating a devote libertarian, and tried my best to contend with her family and social circles, all of whom were diehard libertarians. They all had one thing in common: they lusted over capitalism and they all had silver spoons in their mouths. They were also EXTREMELY defensive about how hard they worked to achieve their success, even though all of them springboarded off of sociological advantages, like rich parents or privileged upbringings, and put in no more "work" than most middle-class citizens who barely break even. Even the tiniest slight against their views would elicit a bloodthirsty reaction. They would typically react just as you are reacting to Bella.

      Sorry, but Bella has a point. You're just defensive, angry and flying off on a self-absorbed tangent.

      Delete

  3. By the way, Ayn Rand was more of an Objectivist than a libertarian; if you were better-read on the subject matter, you would have already known that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think she was saying that Ayn Rand herself was a Libertarian, but that Libertarians often cite Rand as an inspiration.

      Delete
    2. I specifically said that Ayn Rand is influential in the Tea Party movement, which is undeniably true. Although, I do get a pretty good laugh out of being called misinformed about libertarian thought by someone who is apparently unaware of the influence of both Ayn Rand's work and the idea of the value of self-interest to various strands of libertarian thought more generally.

      Delete
    3. "I don't think she was saying that Ayn Rand herself was a Libertarian, but that Libertarians often cite Rand as an inspiration."

      The implication was that there is an inextricable link between the philosophies of Ron Paul and his brand of libertarianism and Ayn Rand, but I can assure you that there would be very little overlap in a Venn diagram between the two.

      "I specifically said that Ayn Rand is influential in the Tea Party movement, which is undeniably true."

      Now we're moving the goalposts a bit....The Tea Party movement doesn't neatly encompass libertarianism, which is what we're discussing. Even still, I'll take the bait. What makes your assertion "undeniably true"? You know a few members have read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead so the whole movement is guided by her philosophy? Sorry, You need to demonstrate using more facts, evidence, and logic and less through simple declarative sentences.

      "I do get a pretty good laugh out of being called misinformed about libertarian thought by someone who is apparently unaware of the influence of both Ayn Rand's work"

      Yet you continue to spew opinions on the matter with little substance to back up your assertions.

      "... the idea of the value of self-interest to various strands of libertarian thought more generally."

      Repeating this and similar things over and over don't make them true. You made zero attempt to address my remarks about the NAP, nor have you made any other attempt to address core libertarian principles - calls for an end to monetary manipulation by the Federal Reserve (which disproportionately affects poor and working class people negatively), non-interventionism in foreign policy, an end to the War on Drugs, etc. - which inherently argue for more fairness, peace, and justice and downplay "self-interest." Also, you seem to be decrying self-interest as if it's altogether a bad thing and akin to selfishness. That's not necessarily the case. A certain level of self-interest is a very good thing as it promotes a level of personal responsibility and initiative. It takes someone who's really been stifled by the statists' creed to demonize those concepts.

      Delete
    4. I said that Ayn Rand is revered by the Tea Party movement because members of the movement say that they revere her, and make constant, visible references to her (e.g. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/ayn-rand-vs-america/243954/ - in fact, you can Google image search "Ayn Rand tea party rally" and find many similar pictures). At any rate, the arguments you are making are veering further and further away from my original statements. Matt said progressivism/liberalism is based on philosophies premised on valorization of the self and self-interest. I simply said that, those philosophies (whether they are "good" or "bad" I made no comment on) have had more of an impact on libertarianism and the Tea Party movement (I made this point only because Matt has supported the Tea Party movement, and I found some irony in that).That is a far cry from saying that it is the *only* or even the most important philosophical basis of libertarianism, so your other points are irrelevant to the discussion.

      Delete
    5. Sure, whatever. It's clear you're not interested in an honest and intellectual discussion on the matter. Based on your presentation, I get the impression you are in your early 20s, just out of college or maybe still in, wrapping up a degree with a liberal arts major. You come across as naïve and uninformed, and your sweeping generalizations and projections make your arguments very weak. Hopefully this is just a phase that you'll mature from and be a productive member of society.

      Delete
    6. Bottom line, I've been affiliated with the liberty movement (libertarianism) - but NOT the Tea Party - for several years now and am quite familiar with the ridiculous, childish, and outlandish claims accusations by those who oppose, heckle, and try to demean us, some of which you insinuate that you espouse and endorse. It's the same tired stuff over and over again, but I can assure you that I'm no more discouraged and dissuaded by the ongoing taunts now than I was 5 years ago, so feel free to keep giving it your best shot.

      Delete
    7. Calm down, dude. Nowhere did I say anything insulting, demeaning or in any way oppositional to libertarianism in this post or in this comment thread. (I was merely pointing out an inconsistency in one of Matt's statements - saying that in this post he opposes an idea that he has at other times in various ways - some other than what I have mentioned - supported). It is not about you or libertarians or Tea Party members, so there is no need to try to pick a fight.

      (Also, for the record, all of your assumptions about me are very wrong.)

      Delete
  4. Please come up with something more interesting than a person that has opinions against a person who has opinions. I found this site by accident and YAWN. Start a new blog please and let the subject matter be more productive in one's life. RESUME: I blog about a blogger. Really?

    ReplyDelete
  5. So I'm a little confused. Is Matt saying that progressives are too diverse, meaning their philosophical forefathers believed different things, or is he throwing all progressives in the same boat?

    I will agree with you that some of the philosophers he listed didn't completely fit (well mostly just Kant) but you can see those philosophers' beliefs alive in modern progressive ideology. While progressives like to continually claim they are for "the people" or "the masses", has their ideology not created somewhat of an aristocracy? Can you seriously claim that Obama, and most of the "progressive" leadership, don't act like aristocrats? He's always out golfing or on expensive vacations on our dime and he legislates by fiat from the executive branch (which is completely unconstitutional). He's the quintessential imperial president. So whether it is intentional or not, the "progressive" movement has created an aristocratic-like class system all for the "good of the people."

    And right wing ideology is NOT about "worship of the self". It is about individuals cooperating for the good of society. But here is the important part, it's not coersive. It's about voluntary exchange, two or more individuals working together in a way that benefits all parties involved.

    ReplyDelete