The lie of “liberalism”

800px-EricfonerOne needs to get a line on Eric Foner before we begin. He is profiled as a historian but he is on the editorial board of the misnamed The Nation [misnamed because they are about destroying the Nation through the also misnamed and hijacked term Liberalism] and the Marxist-rooted Past and Present.

A quick look at contributors to the Nation include Bertrand Russell, Christopher Hitchens, Leon Trotsky, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Hannah Arendt and John Maynard Keynes.

Foner is a problem because he is as much beloved of Rove and the Neocons as he is of the Left:

Foner’s vision of American history comports with the political correctness favored by the Left today–indeed at times he seems less interested in Reconstruction than in reconstructing latter-day American society. Surprisingly, or perhaps not, this project has won him influential admirers among the Republican Party. But even as Foner invokes the legacy of slavery and other racial iniquities as pretexts for government-mandated “social justice” and sensitivity today, he has never had to say he was sorry that he and his family whitewashed the crimes of Stalin’s USSR.

Foner’s appeal to the Left and to vote-seeking Republicans such as Rove is as much moral as historical. But on both accounts, there are reasons to have deep reservations about the Columbia professor.

For example:

Dr Foner personifies everything that is wrong with academia in America, especially where history departments are concerned, and his influence is widely felt.

He obviously holds a fair amount of status among his fellow historians. He also influences countless college students; not just those he instructs at Columbia, but the much larger number of collegians who get their introduction to American History from his shamelessly biased freshman textbook “Give Me Liberty.”

Even a cursory glance at Professor Foner’s writings makes it clear that he is a left wing radical, far outside the mainstream of American politics. The fact that his fellow historians keep electing him to lead their professional societies shows that Marxist politics are considered more or less normal among college history faculties.

College professors in general tend to lean pretty far to the left, and history professors even more so. Dr. Foner [warned] his fellow radicals that the 9/11 attacks could cause a backlash against Marxism, saying that “just as the signs were growing of a renewed confidence in the world anti-capitalist movement, the attention of the world’s leaders is focused on a single, dreadful act that gives them the excuse they need to gun the engines of oppression.

Now at this point, it’s well worth throwing in a quote I’ve used before – that of the character René Mathis, in Quantum of Solace who said:

But I guess when one is young, it seems very easy to distinguish between right and wrong but as one gets older, it becomes more difficult – the villains and the heroes get all mixed up.

Everything is turned on its head – Rove supports a Marxist, Foner writes a book on Liberty [go figure] and is involved in a Constitutional group, the Statists are called Liberals. It’s truly weird but not accidental. The Left has simply grabbed the feelgood words for themselves along the way and attributed feelbad words to the Right. How did the Right allow it to happen? They were outplayed by an organized enemy. The Right, by the very fact that it supports individualism, is no match for the interlocked and concerted forces of global Marxism.

And the very term Right is a misnomer, as you know, a construct, a repository for all the bad things in society according to the Left, which even denies its own nomenclature and says there’s no such thing, except when vilifying the Right.

They complicate it so that you don’t know if you’re coming or going. On the grounds that if an animal has four hooves, a long neck, a mane and gallops very fast, then it is probably a horse, so when one looks at academics and how they’ve shifted ground to catch the Right out of position in an everchanging remake of the Left, those of the Right who keep on about Marxists [myself included] have been wrong-footed by the new Leftism:

By the 1980s, the Left in general had changed in such a way that all references to Foner as a “Marxist” or “neo-Marxist” had become misleading. The Left had ceased to be interested in Communism, even if leftists continued to defend it as an unfairly vilified or mostly irrelevant phase in their own development. After the 1960s, what was most important was combating “fascism,” “racism,” “sexism,” and “homophobia.”

We haven’t really been wrong-footed, of course – only to the extent that the nitpicking Left keep redefining everything. So the horse has a makeover, wears shoes on his hooves, trims his mane and doesn’t whinny any more and we’re expected to accept that he has changed? Sticking to the wildlife analogies, the leopard does not change his spots. He still comes from the same tradition and still reacts to issues in the same way – it’s just that he emphasizes other aspects now.

Marxism is a dirty word, the Left concedes this and so wants nothing more to do with it and the more a conservative tries to pin it on them – see the Frankfurt School post at OoL, the more they wriggle out of it and point to how outdated the conservative is.

No he’s not – he’s still dealing with the same animal.

Professor Foner’s far left views animate everything he writes, whether he’s writing for ultra-liberal fringe magazines like The Nation, or writing serious pieces for other scholars, or writing a textbook for gullible eighteen year old college freshmen.

The Professor’s complaints about conservative bias creeping into history textbooks are amusing, given that he himself has written a history textbook designed to indoctrinate college students into his own radically leftist political perspective.

Throughout the book Dr. Foner disparages the free enterprise system, Judeo-Christian values, and Western culture in general. He praises the Communist Party USA for its supposed commitment to human rights, and depicts any expansion of government power as a triumph of Good over Evil.

And so to Foner’s writing, when asked to define “liberalism”:

As I see it, the core tenets are somewhat at odds with each other [1]. On the one hand you have the belief in governmental assistance to the less fortunate[2], governmental regulation of economic activity [3] and very modest governmental efforts [4] to redistribute wealth to assist those further down the social scale [5]. So it’s active government, in the pursuit of social goals, when it comes to the economy.

On the other hand, modern liberalism emphasises privacy, individual rights and civil liberties [6] – keeping government out of your life when it comes to things like abortion rights [7]. In other words, in the private realm liberalism is for autonomy and lack of government intervention [8]. And also I think today’s liberalism is strongly identified with the rights of various minority groups within American society [9].

In understanding my deep anger at Foner, please remember my background in education at all levels, K-University and in investigations into why education has gone so badly wrong. In 2006, in my early years of blogging, there were posts I admit were bitsy and all over the place and yet they contained data on the dumbing down and the political indoctrination, even down to how research methods have been hijacked by the global left.

One, two, three [using the term liberal correctly], four, five, six, seven and the issue of research: eight.

The reason that the things Foner writes above are so wrong is that they mix up some truth with shifts, slides, false generalizations and misdirection, all with the calm of a celebrity academic. You simply have no time to stop him and say, “Hey, that’s not right.” In those two paragraphs above, alone, are 9 points to call him out on.

By the time I even found a way to express it in one of his lectures, lacking the precise stats, for example, in that auditorium but knowing what he said was wrong, he’d already be onto paragraphs 8 or 9 and there’d be no way to call him out.

Not only that but students who’ve already been dumbed down and who lack any sense of past in the history they’ve been fed and given his celebrity status and the awe in which he’s held – how would someone like me ever be able to be heard?

Quick replies to Foner’s excerpt above:

[1] In other words, it’s metamorphosing to take on the buzzwords of the current day, Marxism now being such a dirty word.
[2] Huge cost over-runs in a health system for all – we’ve seen all that with Obama, willing to commit the ordinary American to future penury for an impossible ideal.
[3] He said it himself – regulation, control, the grand plan.
[4] Modest? Has he seen the effing figures for Obama’s projects?
[5 State redistributing wealth – whose wealth?
[6] This is not just an utter lie, it needs further explanation below.
[7] You bastard – that’s one of the lowest yet [also down below].
[8] Lie. Communitarianism has zero to do with liberty or autonomy for those within the community.
[9] Oppression of the indigenous population.

Right – [6] again. The juggling act the left-liberal has to do in his head is to show compassion and concern for the unfortunate by invoking the state to implement it, while ignoring the fact that it is the taxpayer who funds it and at the same time, is facilitating the growth of the bureaucrat state to Orwellian proportions, which militates completely against the personal liberty the average leftist wants to enjoy.

So the leftist wants himself untouched and he’s a real libertarian here but it’s quite Ok to appropriate other people’s savings to fund his own idea of compassion or rather the ultra-cynical “compassion” of key men like Foner who know the real agenda very, very well. Maurice Strong and Soros are two others.

[7]. Research Planned Parenthood’s antecedents and you get some very murky people involved. I mean, really sit down and don’t follow the usual stuff at the top of google – type in “planned parenthood marxist roots” and you’re away.

I can’t begin to convey how dismayed I am about members of Them who are feted and who hold prestigious positions in society, not unlike the egregious Bertrand Russell, Adorno, Marcuse and so on. These are the truly evil men and women, using people’s natural desire to be part of anything promoting liberty, freedom, compassion, fairness, equality etc. and yet the main players, the key men, are anything but interested in those things, as has been illustrated in so many posts and articles, even from themselves.

American Thinker is a good place to read some of these.  Further reading our side of the pond.

3 comments for “The lie of “liberalism”

  1. August 10, 2011 at 10:37 am

    “Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, unparented, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters. Rioters have no moral compass to make them susceptible to guilt or shame.” [Max Hastings]

    This is precisely what I was saying concerning the Frankfurt School. That’s where it began and it continued through the next two generations, got into universities and schools through such as Eric Foner and the streets of London are just one of the results.

    You can point to the colour of the bulk of the participants and that’s so – but they were educated here, remember. They’re just as much the spawn of our system, together with their own particular chip on the shoulder.

Comments are closed.