Whilst Reading James Delingpole's blog article "Only the Tea Party can save us now" in the Telegraph I was struck by this contributor's comment.
This is one of the best observations of the "Left" mind set and of the workings of the human mind. How we still defend the choices we make, be it our life partner who abuses us, the career path we took or the political ideology we aligned to, believing that it reflected our core values of equal chances for all, and the humanitarian impulses that we operate on can be used and misused.
Tayles
(Spot on, James)
Britain is now in thrall to an idea that many of us thought would be remain buried under the rubble of the Berlin Wall. Instead, since the end of the Cold War, it has gone from strength to strength and now represents political orthodoxy in this country.
In essence, this idea is that it is the duty of the government to provide for its people and remove any source of dissatisfaction from their lives. The central cause of this dissatisfaction is identified as the inequality between individuals, be it in wealth, happiness, respect or self-esteem. This inequality is believed to result from allowing people to decide things for themselves, which leads them to make unwise decisions or give in to greed and prejudice. By allowing a powerful government to act as saviour and redeemer of the people, we can create a better world.
That’s the theory anyway, and on the surface it sounds perfectly benevolent. It entails sympathy for the disadvantaged, and selflessness at being willing to give up what you have for their benefit. It's what lies at the heart of the Left's popularity. Most people want to be 'good' and the ethos of the Left most conspicuously champions the virtues of compassion and altruism.
However, I don't believe for a minute that all socialists are big-hearted dreamers. I think there are less glorious motives at work, which hide behind socialism's public image of love and generosity. I believe that the flip-side of concern for the have-nots is a hatred of the haves. I believe that the Left’s love of the little guy is often a convenient consequence of their resentment of those who are at an advantage to themselves.
You don’t have to be particularly weak to bear a grudge against the strong. A scion of privilege may feel as oppressed and frustrated as a pauper does. Both may consider it his right to have more wealth, power and respect than he currently possesses. Both may dream about usurping those above him. Others have more modest ambitions. They may not want to smash the system; they may only want to feel superior to the people around them. Whatever their precise intentions, the Left provides the answer.
Most people on the Left are united in a hatred of ‘the establishment’ and the people who control it. They imagine that its values and institutions are arbitrary things that exist only to hold them down. I suspect this is a hangover from adolescence, when they dreamed of a life free from responsibility, consequence and criticism, but where their every whim is satisfied. It’s why they oppose anything that whiffs of establishment values: the free market, moral codes, the traditional family and so on. Not only do these things place a burden of responsibility on individuals and threaten their egos, they are favoured by the people they resent. They imagine that the socialist state will make everything right: it will pick them as winners, it will punish their enemies, it will shield them from responsibility and it will suppress the competing interests of others.
This is by means the only appeal of the Left. A large all-powerful state requires the existence of an intellectual class, which will design the blueprint for our perfect society and guide the bureaucracies that bring it about. This anointed elite will serve as our surrogate-decision makers, using their wisdom and enlightenment to create a better world. Many on the Left fancy themselves as part of this elite – if not in person then by proxy through their support of its existence and its values.
Being a part of this 'caring class' is a form of self-flattery. It says they are compassionate people in a heartless world, wise people in an ignorant world, and enlightened people in a prejudiced world. It demands that people like them have a greater say in the running of things. It places them at a moral and social advantage to the recipients of their largess (after all, the hand that gives is always above the hand that receives), and undermines the legitimacy of those who currently enjoy the power and respect denied to them.
This is at the heart of the middle-class liberal’s support for the Left. They believe what they do because it makes them someone special. It tells the world that they are more wise, compassionate and sophisticated than the people around them. It makes them feel part of a heroic elite that exists on a higher plane to everyone else. For those seeking a job in government or the public sector, the reason for supporting the big state is more obvious. They want as much power as they can get and believing that individuals are incapable to running their own lives is essential to that ambition. For those further down the social ladder, the attraction is more obvious still. The Left first persuades them they are helpless victims of other people’s actions, then promises to free them from responsibility, bestow gifts and favours on them, and to bring low the people responsible for their plight. What’s not to like?
Whatever the reasoning behind the continued support of the Left, one thing that you cannot escape is the path that it historically takes. It doesn’t matter how generous-spirited it is to say that all people are equal and deserve an equal outcome in life - they’re not, and to pretend otherwise will lead to a conflict that can only be resolved by force. This force takes the form of rigid controls over what people can and can’t do; their ambitions, their achievements, their rewards, the movements, their opinions, even their thoughts.
What happened in Eastern Europe wasn’t evidence of a revolution betrayed; it was the obvious consequence of socialist ideas. The inefficiency, corruption, authoritarianism and inhumanity of those regimes came as a direct result of the same socialist policies that now receive such enthusiastic support from politicians, the chattering classes and anyone stupid or selfish enough to think that they will create a better world. The fact that the Soviet countries imposed them more ruthlessly than our own political leaders doesn’t take away from the fact that we are headed in the same direction.
Very well written comment....
No comments:
Post a Comment