I always thought it would be difficult to imagine a period in which the West would be more adrift than the 1970s. Being a child at the time, I was spared consciousness of most of that miserable decade. Thus far, however, the second decade of the 2000s seems likely to give the 10 years that spawned Watergate, stagflation, the Carter presidency, the Oil Crisis, Idi Amin, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, Jim Jones, Pol Pot, the Red Brigades, and the Iranian Revolution (to name just a few of the star attractions) a serious run for its money as a byword for Western decline.
One everyday sign of this malaise is the fact that much of the West remains, as in the seventies, mired in what’s now called the Long Slump. And persistently unhealthy economies are usually symptomatic of an unwillingness to acknowledge deeper problems. Examples are most Western governments’ reluctance to accept that it’s game-over for the regulatory and welfare state as-we-knew-it, or to do something about the growing cancer of crony-capitalism.
Sometimes, however, an event occurs that highlights the more fundamental crises that bedevil a civilization. The rise of a movement as diabolical as ISIS, for instance, has surely underscored the bankruptcy of what might be called the sentimental humanitarian outlook that dominates so many contemporary shapers of the West’s cultural consensus.
Sentimental humanitarianism has several features. One is the mind-set that reduces evil to structural causes. “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains,” proclaimed Rousseau in his Du contrat social. From this, many concluded that evil would disappear if the right people were put in charge to change the structures.
Sentimental humanitarianism also assumes that all religions are more-or-less the same and, given the right conditions, will vacillate their way towards something as innocuous as today’s Church of England. But as a wise recently retired pope once wrote, a major failure of imagination since the 1960s has been the disinclination to concede that thereare “sick and distorted forms of religion.”
Despite its claims to take the mind seriously, sentimental humanitarianism is also rather “uncomfortable” (to use classic sentimental humanitarian language) with any substantive understanding of reason. It tends to reduce most debates to exchanges of feelings. You know you’re dealing with a sentimental humanitarian whenever someone responds to arguments with expressions such as “Well, I just feel…” or “You can’t say that,” or (the ultimate trump-card) “That’s hurtful.”
The sad irony is that the longer we stay in a sentimental humanitarian-induced sleep about such things, the greater the possibility that the nightmares we dread will become real.
Consider, for example, the words of the Chaldean Catholic archbishop of Mosul whose flock has been murdered, robbed, raped, and scattered by ISIS. Speaking about the perpetrators to a Western audience, Archbishop Amel Shimoun Nona said, “Your values are not their values.” “Your liberal and democratic principles,” he added, “are worth nothing here.” In the face of such blunt remarks, your average sentimental humanitarian has little to say.
The title, "Liberalism is Incapable of Confronting the Evil in Man" is a contradiction in terms. How can "liberals" confront evil, when they are 1) not liberal 2) they are totalitarians, and 3) they are the evil that must be confronted? It is like saying that Evil is incapable of confronting evil.
We need to stop calling people what they are not. "Liberals" is a name they gave themselves, when people began to understand that socialism was a disaster. When people started realizing that "liberal" was just another left wing ideology, they started calling themselves "progressives". I can understand why the left disguises itself, but what I cannot understand is why we continually accommodate their wishes, instead of calling them what they are. The term that covers every ideology of the left is Totalitarians, or as Mark Levin likes to use - Statists. The Statists or Totalitarians are the evil that must be confronted and discredited at a minimum, destroyed, or reduced to ineffectiveness. Not an easy task, especially for people who believe in individual freedom, yet paradoxically must organize in groups to fight the internal enemy. The evil that infects the minds of those on the left is little by little opening the doors to our external enemies, the Islamofacists, but if we do not render the left ineffective, it will continue its mission of the destruction of a free America - that is what is really meant by the "fundamental transformation of America".
There are two main problems with the Constitution. The first is that there is inadequate oversight. Electing representatives and having to wait years while they do their damage is insane. When they do harm, they should be suspended immediately and their case reviewed and then, if they are guilty, kick them out. It may take a 4th branch of government - with teeth. The impeachment process has been rendered useless, because without the 67 votes in the Senate, there can be no conviction, and no removal from office. We need a mechanism like an Oversight Branch to relieve us of the misery our bad voting choices cause us.
To make something like this feasible, much more effort must be made to educate the people, by ensuring that every law, rule, regulation, and policy, at every level, includes all the FORESEEABLE harmful consequences in writing, not just the benefits that the law is claimed to bring. This will help the people understand what the politicians are trying to do to us. Needless to say, it would be much more difficult to pass laws, but, the fewer laws, the smaller the scope of government.
We already have an 'oversight branch' called the Supreme Court. Bound to enforce the constitution and be the final arbiter of 'laws', executive orders and one might hope rule by the 'bureaus'. However our courts have some fundamental flaws. Political appointment and legislative approval both fundamentally political processes. How could your 'oversight branch' be different? By what magical process could it be formed, approved, ordained, materialized.....? By whatever means it will always be plagued by the imperfection of man in it's constituents.
Houston, we have a problem. Thanks for wrestling with it for us.
Your points are well taken. However, the SCOTUS is not an oversight branch in the sense I am talking about. If you read my post again, you will see I am talking about a 4th branch that can throw out politicians who do harm without having to wait for them to finish a term. Voters do make mistakes, but why should those mistakes be allowed to fester and be repeated over and over again? My main point is that politicians should do no harm, but we know they do harm, so we need a mechanism to mitigate the harm they do by punishing them for doing harm. The SCOTUS can only determine if laws are constitutional, and they cannot enforce anything. The only means of punishment we have is impeachment and conviction, and removal for criminal activities. That is not enough. I'm talking about an organization that has the power to fire politicians. The members would have to come from a broad spectrum of the people, and the basis for firing would be making laws that cause harm. Those are the kind of laws that have harmful foreseeable consequences, the kind of laws that tell people what they must do, instead of laws that tell us what we are not allowed to do because doing it would cause chaos.
I understand the difficulties in working out something like this. It would have to have a constitutional amendment and that might never happen, but that does not lessen the need for a better way than we have now. I am always open to better ideas.
I had an interesting experience confronting Evil Liberal Black American Teens. During my transaction at the cashier of a Corporate Gas station in Minnesota, we were interrupted by another patron (Black 18 Yr, old female). Apparently she had a question that could only be answered by the Manager, who was actually attending to me. He asked her to wait a moment while he completed his business with me. This female responded with an "F U then!"
I was shocked and appalled at the public display of disrespect she had committed. I felt urged, as a Man of Faith, to publicly respond with my own statement to her with, "That's uncalled for." She immediately started a loud confrontation about me getting in her business. I responded, telling her that she is in a public place, and it's everybody's business. She responded calling me a 'Ni**er' and 'Bi*ch'. I responded with an animated question..."Ni**er?' Ni**er?'.
Out of nowhere another Black female appeared that physically and verbally confronted me, pointing her finger in my face asking if I called her friend a Ni**er'. I said no, I was asking why I was called a Ni**er. Apparently she wasn't listening because she poked me in the face with her finger. I asked the manager to call the police, which he did. I intended on filing simple assault charges. When the 2nd female heard me ask for the police, she began throwing items from the store at my head, and hit me once. It cut me badly, enough to require stitches. They were both arrested.
After the police officer reviewed the recorded camera DVD, he asked why I would try to hold someone accountable for bad behavior. I told him that evil advances when no-one confronts it. This event taught me that confronting evil is not always easy, however it must be done.
I am curious. Based on the subject of this discussion, "Liberalism is Incapable of Confronting the Evil in Man", are you a "liberal" trying to show that "liberals" can confront evil? If you are not a "liberal", don't get insulted. I don't think that was what you intended, but in context that is the way it came out.
Those we call "liberals" are not liberals; they are evil totalitarians, but sadly even conservatives have been brainwashed into calling them what they want to be called. The subject of this discussion is really saying that evil people are incapable of confronting evil. That should be pretty obvious.
You might have been very lucky. But isn't the real question whether your actions dissuaded them from acting so stupidly in the future? I somehow doubt it.
Evil needs to be not just confronted, but destroyed, or persuaded to change. Unfortunately, we are told that because we are civilized, we must tolerate evil, and only the law is allowed to do the confronting. I suspect in this case if you had retaliated, you might be the one in jail. Sometimes it is best to confront evil, and other times it is best not to,
No, I am not a Liberal. I am a Conservative Tea Party Republican Marine Veteran. I had my opportunity to tune them up. However, that would make me an evildoer.
In the Bible it says that 'if Good Men fail to confront Evil, then Evil prevails and survives and thrives.'
In my case, there will never be a choice as to whether to confront it or not. Of course you always confront it and show all who witness, what is evil by its' actions/words. That example is serving the purpose of showing what Jesus did that led Him to the cross. When asked for the truth, he gave it. When ask for a lie, he denied it. When faced with the possibility of harm...he faced it with the truth. Faith is not always the easiest path, but it's mine.
I agree that Liberalism is actually evil totalitarianism. A movement of elitist, lord/ peasant class separation of peoples. Their wish is to control man.
On the topic of: evil must be destroyed. That it not humanly possible. Anyone who thinks so is foolish and misinformed. There will always be evil, until Jesus comes again and casts it out forever. It can ONLY be persuaded to change through such examples as, witnessing the event that I experienced. Maybe the term 'confront' is the wrong word, but better said as 'publicly telling the truth.' Even 'John the Baptist' called out to King Herod, and said "that he was committing adultery and to leave his adulteress. Then REPENT...REPENT!!" This is the way you persuade evil to the fact that they need to change. The act of changing is the evildoers decision, all we can do is 'call it for what it is...evil!' Calling it, is a verbal action, most times not well received. However, it has many peripheral causes and purposes.
This all being said...I was actually looking for a forum to share my story, and show how Liberalism fosters the sense of entitlement, without working for it. To display bad behavior with no expectation of being held accountable, and if someone calls them out, they defend themselves with aggressive offense. They do this to confuse witnesses from their previous bad behavior. However, in my case I repeatedly held my ground and continued to say that what they said to the Manager was unacceptable...and NOT ON MY WATCH am I going to just walk away and ignore.
To address the discussion topic at hand, I agree that Liberals are incapable of confronting evil, because it serves their purpose. Which at the core..is evil. So basically, evil fosters evil. For example, evil people like Pelosi and Reid will publicly call out evil, but their underlying purpose is evil and those that know their political stance...know there purpose to deal with evil is to actually promote it. Thanks ALL for letting me share this, possibly irrelevant event to discuss. The experience was fresh in mind.
Thanks for the response. I didn't really think you were a totalitarian.
While I agree it is not possible to eliminate evil, I believe that WWII showed us that evil can be destroyed when it arises if there is the will on the part of free people. Unfortunately the required will not longer seems to exist, and even the bastions of faith that are supposed to stand against evil have been corrupted to the point they put their collective heads in the sand or actually support evil. Part of the problem is that we prospered to the point that people got lazy, irresponsible, and refused accountability. Another part is that we we gave away the education system to the totalitarians.