Just in time for Halloween – three scary things about the American left

Just before a holiday dedicated to scary things, I thought I’d write down the three things that I think are scary about politics in America these days. They are present on both sides of most questions, but seem to be most prevalent, and in their most scary forms, on the left. I think this is because of the left’s fundamental belief that they can force other people to behave if they just get the right people in power, and the right laws in place. And by “behave” I mean “think and live the way the left currently believes is correct.”

The three scary tendencies:

Gorify their own leaders.

Dehumanize their opponents.

Punish those who do not conform.

If you’re on the left, and you admit that Barak and Hilary have at least some serious flaws, and you truly believe that your opponents are well-intentioned individuals, and you are not pushing policies that require government force to ensure compliance, then the rest of this writing might not apply to you. I think you’re in a minority though. If you’re on the right, and you do any of these, then I wish you’d stop, too.

Glorifying leaders.

Everyone has a desire for admirable leaders. Hopefully we seek out admirable people before elevating them to leadership, but, once we have acknowledged them as leaders, we want to continue to believe they are worthy of our admiration.

Sometimes, though, people go overboard in trying to praise their leaders. Many cultures in history have declared their rulers to be gods (or, their rulers declared themselves gods and the people went along). Some more recent examples are from North Korea, where their supreme leader reportedly bowled a perfect 300 in his first game, had 5 holes-in-one and shot 38 under par in his first round of golf, filled out a perfect NCAA basketball tournament bracket, and invented invisible cell phones.

Sadly, the American left seems to be following a similar path. Obama’s candidacy was celebrated by presenting him in front of faux Greek columns. Obama declared that his candidacy marked the moment when “our planet began to heal.”  Obama declared that he was a better speechwriter than his staff speechwriters, that he knew more about policies that his policy directors, and that he’s a better political director than his political director. Chris Mathews claimed to get a thrill up his leg when hearing Obama speak. Obama’s fans insist that he has been a perfect President, except where blocked by those nasty Republicans, and that Obama and his family have governed the country with unprecedented grace, despite statements like “bring a gun to a knife fight.” Obama takes credit for increase in US oil reserves, despite his unwavering opposition to fracking technology that enabled those increases. And there is never any questioning or opposition from the left. Is he really perfect?

Currently, Hilary is the golden child. Repeating some of the information from the left about her: She is the best prepared person ever to run for president. She is the most ethical candidate ever. She has faced unprecedented opposition in her career, and none of the allegations against her have ever been valid. She had no role in her husband’s scandals and coverups, or maybe she did but it was part of trying to save her marriage. She was a brilliant part-time commodities trader who made $100k against trillion to one odds. She has spent her life fighting for the common person (and built a net worth of many millions of dollars with her only assets being her role in government). She was even too perfect to admit being ill until video evidence showed her being dragged into a van on 9/11. Then, of course, it was just testimony of her superwoman status that she had been able to campaign while so ill.

It’s not scary that the left likes Hilary; it’s scary that they proclaim her perfection, and that no one on the left is at all interested in whether she might possibly be flawed in any way. Contrast that with the ferocious infighting on the right, between the candidate Trump and the Never-Trumpers, or the many who objected to Romney or McCain, or the battles between Republicans in Congress. The US was founded on the notion of a divided government, where different branches of government would work to ensure that no one person acquired too much power. That has been eroding through the fault of both parties. However, it’s hard to actually assert dictatorial powers if the people realize that you might be wrong. The left seems to be intent on presenting its leaders as almost North Korean perfect, and that’s scary.

To those on the left – think about whether you would be willing to publicly acknowledge any significant flaw in your leader. And not “sometimes she disrupts air traffic when she leaps tall buildings in a single bound” or “sometimes other people feel bad when they realize they can’t compare with her brilliance.”

Dehumanizing opponents.

The left has a disturbing tendency to insult, dehumanize, and then punish all who disagree. Someone who agrees with Trump on any point can’t just have a different vision of what is best; they have to be “those people,” “frenzied, narrow minded … ready to go off like a loose canon [sic].” Someone who intends to vote for Trump can’t just be wrong; they have to be a “deplorable.” And it’s not just Trump that brings this name-calling to the fore. Someone who thinks its wrong to abort a female baby because the parents wanted a boy is not someone defending the value of girls but rather part of a “war on women” and must be forced to recant and even to pay for the abortion. Someone who sells cakes to everyone, but doesn’t want to participate in a wedding they think is bad for the people involved, is not just a concerned person, or even an eccentric, but a homophobe who needs to be fined by the government and bullied out of business. People who voted against Obama can’t just be another part of America that the president also needs to serve, but must be “enemies,” who bitterly cling to their guns and religion, and must be “punished.” Speakers whose views don’t conform to current leftist orthodoxy are protested off college campuses, or shouted down when they arrive. Even a leftist professor who thinks that college students should lighten up a little about Halloween costumes has to be accosted on campus and shouted down. Why are there so few attempts to understand how or why others think the way they do? The left used to like to talk about speaking truth to power, but when the left is in power the only truth that can be spoken is that currently approved by the left.

This tendency to dehumanize opponents is particularly scary when viewed in light of history. It’s hard to do evil to your brother, or to your neighbor, or to any fellow human, even if you disagree with their beliefs or actions. Before any great persecution, the group to be persecuted must first be dehumanized. We can’t just object to their beliefs or actions; we must reclassify them as something less than human. The Jews were branded as vermin before the Nazis started exterminating them. Jews today are described as pigs and dogs to justify the Muslim world’s self-proclaimed attempts at genocide. The business owners in Soviet Russia were declared as enemies of the people, preying on the workers, before they were arrested and killed. Everyone with an education in Cambodia was branded an enemy of the people before the killing fields began. I am not claiming that those on the left want to kill those in opposition, but the movement as a whole seems to be insistent on taking the first step. The left doesn’t just disagree with the right; the left dismisses those on the right as evil in their very being, nonpersons who do not deserve to be heard or understood, only eliminated. If your opponents are evil then you don’t have to understand them, or compromise with them; it’s your duty only to destroy them.

To those on the left – think about whether you really see your political opponents as individual humans with the same worth as you. Or are they “those people,” “deplorables,” who you hope will just “disappear?” Do you try to understand how and why they believe the way they do? Or just dismiss them as uneducated, or uninformed, or racist, or some other dehumanizing label?

The need to punish those who do not conform.

Many of the left’s proposals sound appealing. Based on just the headlines, everyone agrees that we’d like our children to be educated, that we’d like fewer criminals to have guns, that we’d like to help women with unplanned pregnancies, that we’d like everyone to be treated fairly by others, that we’d like to help the poor. If the left was pushing their specific programs as voluntary, cooperative efforts, they might get a lot of followers. Or if they were enlisting others for a vigorous debate about how to best achieve those goals, they’d be doing a great service. But that’s not the way the left works in America.

The left’s specific policies, disguised by appealing headlines, are always mandatory. They are always appeals for government action. The specific policies are so brilliant that everyone must be forced to follow along. The right’s belief in better education results in diverse efforts: raising money for private schools, or making personal sacrifices to allow a parent to homeschool the kids, or volunteering at the local public school. But the left believes that better education only comes through their public schools, staffed by their teachers and administrators (union membership mandatory). That disagreement would be fine, except that they turn to government to force everyone to participate. If you disagree with the approach taken by the local private school, you can choose not to donate. But you don’t get the choice with the left’s vision for education, despite its history of failures. You must pay for their program. If their vision is so good, why can’t they convince people to support it without the force of government backing them up?

When the right wants to help the poor, they raise benevolence funds at churches, or run food banks, or start businesses to employ people, or start children’s homes built by volunteer labor, or muster private boats to help people escape floods. When the left wants to help the poor, they set rules for who is entitled to money, then force everyone to pay for their system (including the administrators to run the system). Despite the generational failure of the left’s “War on Poverty,” it’s still mandatory. Even when the right brings volunteers in boats to help, the left wants to assess fees and require licenses. Even when the right creates jobs or runs food banks, the left steps in with laws to make sure that the people who are actually doing something have to do it the way the left says.

It’s like that across the board, too. Disagree with how homosexuals are treated? One approach is to educate people, to talk to your neighbors, to try to find common ground. Or you can force disputes with tiny bakeries or florist shops, and use government to fine and penalize them out of business. Guess which one the left uses?

To those on the left - think of your favorite good policy. Can you envision a way to convince people they want to participate, without requiring government force against those who disagree?

But maybe it'll all be ok?

It’s as though the left thinks the rest of the people can’t be trusted to think for themselves, or to decide how to run their own lives, or even how to live with their own neighbors. I guess if the rest are deplorable in our very being, maybe it’s justified to enslave everyone to the brilliance of the left. Their leaders are perfect, after all.