Liberalism has been mugged by reality

Stranger in a Strange Land

Photo Credit

This is the first of a three-part series that examines and defines modern liberalism. We mustn’t however allow ourselves to become confused by political labels such as conservative, fascist, communist, liberal, progressive, centrist, populist, democrat, republican, libertarian, socialist and anarchist.

Labels notwithstanding, mankind always has been divided into two camps.

Robert Heinlein (Stranger in a Strange Land) wrote:

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Grover Norquist stated it simply: people divide politically between the “leave us alone” and the “takings” coalitions. Thomas Jefferson nailed it 250 years ago: “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe . . . depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist. Call them  . . . by whatever name you please. they are the same parties and pursue the same object.”

Modern liberalism wants people to be controlled, doesn’t want to leave them alone and wants to take from them. As Jefferson described, it fears and distrusts the people and desires to arrogate all power.

Today’s liberals believe in the supremacy of the state and thereby reject the principles of America’s founding documents. They must control individuals in order to control society with the aim of bringing about their vision of Utopia – inevitably resulting in hell on earth as with all Utopias throughout human history.

This leads to a soft tyranny (which we already have) and ultimately results in a hard tyranny, i.e. some form of totalitarianism.

This is a good beginning point but there is much more to understanding and defining modern day liberalism. It is anti-empirical, inconsistent with objective reality and driven by emotion; it eschews logic, reason and persuasion in favor of compulsion.

It is all about feeling and its credo is sentio ergo sum, i.e. I feel therefore I am.

Thus, liberalism can be understood and defined as an emotional state characterized by obvious contradictions, disdain for facts, Utopian fantasies, obsessive desires to control and to take from others and antipathy for all who differ.

As accurate as the preceding definition is, it represents but a way station in my grasp of liberalism. My thinking has since evolved to an even higher level and I have come to  understand the true nature, and hence the ultimate definition, of modern liberalism. Everything about it is based on lies.

Liberalism has been mugged by reality, although none of its acolytes dares acknowledge it, preferring instead prevarication, deceit, ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion. The true definition of liberalism thus requires only four words: Liberalism is a lie!

In part two I describe in detail how and why liberalism is a lie. The third and final part describes how contemporary liberalism has become so insular that its adherents live lives that resemble that of the “Boy in the Plastic Bubble“. Stay tuned!

George Noga

George Noga has BS and MBA degrees in finance from Florida State University and is the founder of More Liberty – Less Government Foundation. He currently serves as Chairman Emeritus of Children First Florida and Co-Chair for the Central Florida Center Right Coalition and is on the Central Florida Advisory Board of the James Madison Institute.
The opinions expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of BizPac Review.

Latest posts by George Noga (see all)


3 thoughts on “Liberalism has been mugged by reality

  1. Stephen says:

    I love Heinlein, but I don't see how this is useful. In fact, I got a little rankled when Jefferson is invoked… without attribution… as describing liberalism as fearing and distrusting the people! (I vaguely recall a comment of his that it is the nature of the State to fear and distrust, though.)

    In fact, more and more I want to define myself as a liberal. I recall as a child that moment in the 1980's when "liberal" became a smear word, and now I want to fight against that. Liberalism, as traditionally understood and as the very word suggests, is an ideology of freedom. In the era of Jefferson a liberal was somebody against monarchy, against absolutism, against a state church, and very much for laissez-faire economic policies and the core freedoms enumerated in our ill of Rights, among other declarations.

    I realize that in today's language, "liberal" has come to mean the perspective that the State owns us all. That things like gun confiscation, income taxation, government goons who will check up on you to make sure you're raising your kids right, compulsory behavior and ideology modification – sorry, I mean "schooling" – etc. Indeed, this ideology is more or less antithetical to classical liberalism, and interprets "freedom" as the right of the majority consensus (a consensus constructed by ignoring or, if needed, quashing dissent) to impose its will on all of the old, ignorant, backwards people who don't "get it" that, you know, this or that social issue is so pressing that we must "do something"…

    But it seems to me that we need first to fix our use of language. Conservatives – at least in terms of these core issues – really are liberals, and should take the name back.

  2. Sam Page says:

    ✭✭✭✭✭ This is one of the most pathetic, out-of-context, missrepresented left wing sack of boneheaded, barfbag blather I've heard to date.

    And thats me being GENEROUS! 🙂


  3. KB Cook says:

    Great article! Looking forward to the next parts! Thanks

Comments are closed.

Related Posts