Churchill Was Right

Reading the derision-filled drivel coming from the Left, seen in blogs, various forums, Twitter, and most regularly the MSM, one has to wonder what it is that generates such anger. Daniel Greenfield takes a stab at getting to the bottom of the Left's animus, explaining it with one simple sentence:

Hate is the force that gives the Left meaning.

That's it in a nutshell. It is hatred of anyone who is not them that gives them a reason to live. I can see no other explanation. Even when they're trying to do good, at least good in their eyes, there is some kind of base motive behind it. As one commenter to Daniel's piece stated:

The left, in general, is also quite self absorbed and selfish. Their policies are meant to make themselves feel good. "Look what we did, we gave money (usually not theirs) to the poor"....they assign success on intentions and don't really care about outcomes. Never mind their policies often have the reverse effect to the problem they are attempting to address, it does not matter. What matters to most of them is "they care".

Exactly. Too many of the Left aren't doing it to help the downtrodden feel better, but to make themselves feel better. It doesn't matter to them whether they actually achieve something good as long as their intentions were good. (We all know where that road leads, don't we?) The help they give isn't long lasting, the effects which fade away not long after the cameras are turned off and the reporters leave. Then they want to come back to give even more money that isn't theirs, to make it seem they're helping. But it doesn't work, ever.

Heaven forbid they actually help anyone get back on their feet, because if they do the people they helped will no longer need them and then the Left can't feel good about themselves anymore.

There is a pathology to the Left that has, over the years, lead to the deaths of millions at the hands of the very people that were supposedly going to help them...unless of course they ones they killed were convenient scapegoats for all the ills the Left themselves have afflicted upon the populace. Goodness knows we've seen that in the USSR, China, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, and a whole host of other nations suborned by the Left.

Not everyone on the Left is like this, of course, as many are merely clueless dupes. It is a generalization of the more rabid and activist members of the Left, those who believe the ends justifies the means, no matter how horrific the means. But it is this part of the Left that drives the beliefs and actions of the rest, using every trick in the book to divide the populace into 'Us' versus 'Them' and then use that division as justification for minimizing or dehumanizing Them, who ever 'Them' may be. (At the moment it appears 'Them' is us, meaning anyone who is not walking lockstep with the Left's dogma or are capable of making our own decisions based upon facts and not feelings. After all, if we can think for ourselves they know we won't buy their bulls**t because we can see the fallacy behind it and the bankruptcy of their ideas and their morals.)

Daniel brings up another good point about the Left and it's use of anger and hatred, one that in the end can have major unintended consequences.

The left is more comfortable being angry than being anything else; it finds it easier to rally the troops against something than for something so that even its triumphs only lead to more anger. (emphasis added – dce)

I have to agree with Danial on this.

From my experience it seems that all too often the Left proclaims they are against some perceived wrong or inadequacy, will rally the troops to protest against it, will motivate their faithful to vote to address that something, but will not often tell anyone what they are for, at least not directly. When they succeed, it is often the case that there's nothing to fill the gap now left by the 'elimination' of that something they were against...unless it's more state control over whatever it is that pissed them off. They offer no other solutions. And as history has shown us, the more control over the populace, the economy, and other social institutions within a nation the state has, the less effective it becomes and the less wealthy the entire society becomes. (I am not talking about just material wealth, but spiritual and societal wealth as well.) However that doesn't bother the Left as long as they are the ones in control. That wouldn't be so bad, but as history has shown, the Left has never been smart enough, wise enough, or competent enough to run other people's lives. Heck, no one on the Right is either. It is better left to people to control their own lives, even if they're going to screw it up.

That won't stop the Left from trying to take control, as we have seen over the past 100+ years.

Perhaps the best way to address them on this matter is to tell them to mind their own business, to piss off, or to get lost. Better yet, it might do better to ridicule them, to point and laugh at them when they espouse their socially and morally bankrupt ideology in public, on the air waves, on the web, or in their local newspapers. Make them the objects of endless, but tasteful humor. Don't minimize them. Don't dehumanize them. Instead make them someone to be pitied, as if they weren't quite cognizant of the mental deficiencies that allow them to believe things that just ain't so. It might be far more effective that trying to lower ourselves to their level in order to debate them, something of which I have found them be incapable, because it always comes back to what they feel about something and not the facts.

A lot of the Left's beliefs can be summed up in this quote from Winston Churchill, who understood the evils of socialism as espoused by the Left for what it was: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."