Ideological Kin: The Progressive Left Hold the Same Values As Tyrants and Oppressors
One the most frequently used debate tactics of today’s Left is comparing their opponents to tyrants of the past. Terms such as “Hitler,” “Stalin” and “Mao” are regularly hurled by the Woke against whoever opposes them, which usually happen to be some variety of conservatives. Levelling pejoratives at their interlocutors is, in fact, the progressive Left’s principal and most favored form of argument whenever their views are questioned.
By now we are all-too familiar with the following scenario which keeps repeating itself with monotonous predictability: A progressive makes a claim about our society or the nature of relations within it. An opponent counters this contention by presenting evidence to the contrary. Instead of engaging with the evidence, the social warrior becomes angry and claims to be offended. He or she then begin begins to shout and accusations of “Hitler,” “fascist” and such fly in a quick succession.
But are such accusations really justified? Do conservatives have the same mindset or hail from the same ideological pedigree as Hitler, Stalin or Mao? And what about those who so self-righteously level these accusations? Where do they really stand in all of this? What are their own ideological roots and credentials?
Fortunately, there is a relatively easy way to cut through the froth of passions and heated rhetoric to get at the truth of the matter. We will do this by taking the three classes in question – tyrants, progressives and conservatives – and place them side by side. We will then look at how their values compare in regard to important issues of practical politics and philosophy. This should help clarify the situation by bringing out the underlying political pedigrees and ideological links.
For the purposes of illustration and personal relatability, we will choose typical representatives for each class. For the first two groups the choices are easy and obvious. Thus, the tyrant category will be represented by the usual suspects: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and Kim Jong-un. Those in the leftist column will be broadly represented by those who in the contemporary political parlance are called the Woke. The Woke encompass large swathes of today’s Left and include those who would call themselves progressives and social justice activists which, in turn, span subgroups such as anti-racist activists, feminists, BLM, the militant LGBT, homosexual and trans activist among others.
The choice of personnel on the conservative side is more difficult, since it is not easy to find a genuine specimen on the contemporary scene. Most of those who call themselves “conservative” today have compromised their principles in order to appease the media and their progressive critics. From our perspective, there are two well-known living political figures who embody the principles of traditional conservatism. They are Dr Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. Their worldview is not identical since they each give different weight to different aspects of the conservative tradition. Nevertheless, they are both unmistakable bearers of this tradition whose modern foundations have been laid by Adam Smith and Edmund Burke. Both Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are former presidential candidates who have exerted considerable intellectual influence and attracted substantial following. However, their refusal to compromise their principles has alienated the Republican establishment and cost them the nomination. Needless to say, each is in his own way is a great moral force.
Even though Dr Paul is usually called a libertarian in the larger historical context, he would be more aptly described as a classical liberal or a traditional conservative. The main reason he is labelled a libertarian today is to distinguish him from the faux conservatives who have muddled the waters of political discourse. These are people who are not conservatives in the true sense of the term, but who nevertheless managed to appropriate this name for themselves. Such types would comprise, for example, the assorted neo-conservatives and moderate leftists who, for reasons of political expediency, insist on being called “conservative.” Some examples would
Article from LewRockwell