blackandred

“Political Nomenclature (Part Two)”
Or
“Liberal Affinity for European Ideas”
By: J. Thomas Hunter

Wednesday morning, I drove seven hours to join my brother in Minnesota and see a great debate between two well-known political pundits. On the left, was Ed Schultz, who has the number one talk radio show on the liberal network, Air America. Representing my interests on the right, was Salem Radio talk show host, Michael Medved. From the outset, I was prepared to see a mismatch. Besides, Medved is Yale educated and has the advantage of delivering the conservative message, which, as a characteristic, was developed through vigorous debate. I expected to see the equivalence of Bill Clinton being publicly interrogated by Chris Wallace for 2 hours. My expectations were met. Schultz relied on condescension, platitudes, loud-talking, superlatives, and mischaracterization. The audience was very loud and very active—when we agreed we stood up, cheered and hollered. Otherwise, we booed, hissed, and groaned vociferously. It was a wild evening out!

Throughout Schultz’s public meltdown he made some very curious arguments that resonated almost exclusively with the liberal audience. It was obvious that Medved’s message promoted liberty, and optimism, while Schultz’s relied on mistrust, victimization, and a scathing critique of American success. I dare say that Medved’s answers were more “American” than his opponent’s. At the end of the debate I walked away scratching my head, and trying to pinpoint what it was about Schultz’s arguments that bothered me so much. The answer explains the major difference between liberal and conservative thought.

Modern liberal theories are Eurocentric, while conservative theories are wholly American.

For a long time, now, I’ve taken as fact that the left has a strange fascination with Europe. This Europhilia manifests itself in many ways. For example, following the Iraq invasion, leftists complained that “the world hated us.” The world, in their view, consisted of France, Germany, Russia, and some other nations whose opinions never seemed to matter before. Michael Moore in his film “Fahrenheit 911” ridiculed the “lesser nations” of the Coalition of the Willing who were joined by countries like Spain, England, Australia and Italy. To this very day, we are criticized for invading Iraq “unilaterally,” as if these other willing nations didn’t exist. Democrats got all in a tizzy when Donald Rumsfeld referred to our Western European dissenters as part of “old Europe,” but never thought twice about ridiculing countries like Poland and Turkey for having more faith in the American president than they did.

It takes a Republican president to recognize that America relies on intrepidly doing what is right, and to shape policy on that very assumption. It’s in our national anthem, which itself is a war song! We violently severed from the world’s greatest power so that we could pursue liberty and self determination. While Democrats would have preferred that we gain permission from “old Europe” to defend ourselves, Republicans acted in keeping with our unique heritage and national character.

While I could offer many more examples of liberal obsession with Europe, there is one aspect of this modern liberal Eurocentric thought that worries me the most—its reliance on Marxist principles. I recognized this recurrent theme in Ed Schultz’s debate.

Schultz laudably noted that “if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are elected president of the United States, your taxes are going up.” The crowd booed the notion, but I commented to my brother that he was, in fact, telling the truth. At the same time, though, Schultz chastised Americans who were discouraged by this notion as “greedy.” In fact, he made constant reference to us being the “most selfish generation in the history of this country.” That is because, to a leftist, taxation is akin to the collection plate in church. He actually said, “a rising tide raises all boats”—the foundation of communist thought!

Medved’s argument was quite different. He argued that slavery is when the fruits and rewards of your work go to benefit someone else. Because the average American works from January to May just to pay taxes, Medved posited, the American worker is already taxed enough, if not too much. He argues that liberals should focus on shrinking the size of government instead of raising taxes and further enslaving the nation.

To resist government robbing you of your money by threat of imprisonment is greed, Schultz insisted. The robbery itself is justified by Marxist class envy. Schultz continued to argue that the top 2% do nothing to help anyone but themselves.

Apparently, the huge houses, fancy cars, and extravagant items they purchase create themselves, and need no one to work on them. Nobody builds the mansions? Nobody makes the cars? Nobody makes the handbags Paris Hilton uses to carry her little dog everywhere? Indeed, rich people invest their money as well, which helps the economy and creates more jobs and wealth. This matters not to the left. They see success and they call it selfishness.

Is it any wonder why the conservative message is optimistic while the liberal message is one of resentment and bitterness? One should note that Ed Schultz and Michael Medved didn’t just speak for themselves at the debate; they spoke for their respective ideologies as they are represented by their politicians. Medved’s arguments are the staples of modern conservative thought. They can be traced back to the Federalist Papers, and the writings of our founding fathers. Schultz’s, however, beckon to a more recent time, to a more modern place, and to a more controversial figure—19th Century Western Europe—Karl Marx.

Photo Sources: “Ed Schultz” from http://www.washingtonpost.com/; “Michael Medved” from http://www.homepage.mac.com/; “George W. Bush” from http://www.ccadp.org/; “Karl Marx” from www.la-stuckism.com

Trackback URI | Comments RSS