Updating the Political Lexicon

In the wake of the New York Times ad slandering General Petraeus, I had been wondering just how low the Left could sink. In witnessing such an outrage, one is doubly shocked: First, due to the maliciousness shown toward an exemplary citizen; and second, because we still expect the political discourse in this country to display a minimum of fairness and integrity.

An explanation for Leftist smear tactics can be found in Dennis Prager’s article “Does the Left Value Truth?” (hat tip: No Pasarán). He answers the question with an unequivocal NO.

At the outset, Prager is careful to make the distinction between individuals and movements:

There are conservatives who lie and there are liberals who lie. Neither blue nor red has a monopoly on truth-tellers. However, unless one denies that there are distinctive values on the right and on the left—a proposition that no serious liberal or conservative would deny—how much truth is valued may be different for the right and the left.

He goes on to show how attitudes toward truth are reflected in ideology.

Leftist denial of what is true is so widespread that we have a term for it, political correctness. There is no comparable right-wing political correctness, i.e., denying truths so as not to offend right-wing values or certain groups.

This is followed by numerous concrete examples of political correctness and denial of truth.

The expectation of fairness underlying Prager’s essay is based on the old model of liberal vs. conservative. That paradigm, unfortunately, is out of date. We are now entering an era with a new model: collectivism vs. liberal democracy in its entirety. The latter group includes everyone who 50 years ago would have been considered either liberal or conservative.

Certainly, collectivism is not a new phenomenon. What is new, however, is that it has become a mainstream position within American society. It is no longer considered the lunatic fringe, as it was a relatively short time ago.

It is important that we update our political lexicon. Terms like liberal, conservative, moderate, democrat, republican, etc. are losing, or have lost, their erstwhile meanings. Sure, they can still have some relevance on certain issues, such as tax reform. But in the scheme of things, it’s a sideshow.

On the existential questions facing us—illegal immigration, multiculturalism, Islam, the intellectual collapse of academia, the death of art—the array of forces can be understood only in terms of collectivism vs. liberal democracy in its entirety.

In order for liberal democracy to triumph, those with points of view once considered “liberal” must have the courage to repudiate MoveOn, the ACLU, Al Gore, etc.—the wolves in sheep’s clothing that have hijacked the old liberal agenda. Formerly-designated “conservatives” must never tire of explaining that although parts of their agenda may not be palatable to everyone, they are a thousand times closer to real Liberalism than our contemporary cultural overlords.