Leftists seem oblvious to the threat they pose to democracy
Perhaps they need a bit more self-analysis
In his famous best seller “The True Believer”, Eric Hoffer wrote: “ Hence it is that people with a sense of fulfilment think it a good world and would like to conserve it as it is, while the frustrated favor radical change”. Hoffer’s wonderful book explains the historical rise of religions, ideologies, empire builders and revolutions. It is a great read and mercifully only 168 pages long.
The term “leftist” dates back to 1789 when those opposed to the royalty sat themselves to the left of the officer presiding over the assembly and those who wished to preserve the monarchy sat to his right. “Left wing” came to describe those desiring change and “right wing” to those wishing to preserve the status quo. “Far left” described those wishing radical change and “far right” those wishing to return to a past era.
The use of English terms as they were and are defined is essential to meaningful communication. Eric Arthur Blair, writing as “George Orwell” captured the essence of the abuse of power to control language, writing in his classic novel 1984 “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought”. Orwell demonstrated how language can be used to deceive and manipulate people leading to a society where people mindlessly accept propaganda as reality”. That is where Western democracies are today.
To understand the threat posed by today’s leftist parties, one must first agree on definitions that should not be controversial. First, the definition of “socialism” is state ownership or control of the means of production and distribution”. Nothing more and certainly nothing less. Socialism is not progressive income tax policies, welfare, publicly funded health care, or retirement pensions. Those are part and parcel of all political platforms in Canada or United States today and essential elements of every successful democracy.
Communism is just one form of socialism where an autocratic central government controls everything. In most respects it is indistinguishable from socialism, since the objective of socialism is an autocratic central government. One is the outcome of the success of the other.
Democratic socialism is more an oxymoron than a definition, but simply stated means socialism the electorate chose at the ballot box. Democratic socialism is like “Hotel California” - you can get in but you can’t get out.
Human history has been one of persistent suffering and struggle to survive. Even today, almost half of the population of Earth live in abject poverty (defined as an income of less the $6.85 per day). That population has a legitimate grievance and is ripe for “radical change” and even “revolution”. But those who are in awe of the hardship of their own existence don’t revolt, they don’t have time or means. I grew up in poverty. Revolution requires a sense of entitlement and a feeling of power.
In North America, almost no-one lives in abject poverty and what we define as the “poverty line” would be considered well off by the billions of people living on $6.85 a day or less. The frustration that engenders leftist ideology in North America is not economic deprivation, but rather a sense of entitlement and a desire to find meaning in an otherwise empty life. Religion used to be the opiate of the masses, but today somewhere around 30% of the population eschews religion.
In the U.S. Congress, 99% of Republicans are Christian according to Pew Research. About 69% of atheists or agnostics are Democrats, again according to Pew.
Canadians and Americans enjoy living standards far better than kings of old. Devoid of a religious framework for meaning in their lives, atheists and agnostics are ripe for membership in another “mass movement” - and it sseems to matter little what movement that is. Protesters in support of Hamas versus Israel, social justice warriors promoting DEI, ESG or climate change, members of Greenpeace or the Sierra Club and Americans who support “open borders” to ease the humanitarian suffering of people from all over the world embrace these “movements” to find meaning in their lives. Like all mass movements, its members enforce the dogma, punish heresy, and brook no opposing views.
The threat of leftists is simply the breakdown of freedom. Censorship of free speech, control of the media, labeling those who disagree with the climate change narrative as “deniers”, using the system of justice to punish dissidents to their ideology, building the size and power of government, imposing punitive taxes on the population to make them dependent on government, and pushing nonsensical aphysical narratives like climate change are evidence of the threat the left poses to democracy in Canada and United States.
The Orwellian “doublespeak” is rampant.
Contrary to claims by Democrats in United States and Liberals in Canada, conservative parties simply want common sense to prevail, and have policies that mirror what in 1950 were Liberal and Democrat party policies - balanced budgets, small government, low taxes, personal freedom, effective law enforcement, equal treatment under the law, and stable economic growth free from avoidable inflation. Today these policies can accurately be labeled “radical right wing” since they want to return to days when crime was under control, governments respected citizens rights, and free and open debate was considered vital to a university education.
Bereft of a legitimate policy dispute to debate, the American and Canadian left have created artificial and divisive issues to support or decry. LGBTQ++ “rights”, women’s reproductive rights, gender and transgender issues, racism, anti-Semitism, indigenous “rights”, and so on. Both Canada and the United States have constitutions and Canada has a charter of rights that do not differentiate among citizens based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or desire to form a family. These “rights” are constructs created by the left to have debatable issues that affect only a minority of the population in each case but are amenable to the fallacy of composition so that political rivals can be described as a group as “racist” “homophobic” “transphobic” or opposed to a woman’s “right” to kill the unborn for her own convenience. The rhetoric about rights seems to omit any rhetoric about responsibilities, individual or otherwise.
In the words of Pogo “I have seen the enemy and it is us”. We need to elect people who in 1950 would have been considered Liberals but today are considered part of the radical right.
Leftist policies under Trudeau keep damaging Canada. Investors understand risk and reward and foreign investors are staying away from investments in Canada for good reason. The loonie is on the skids, Chrystia Freeland is raising capital gains taxes, the national debt is out of control, massive fiscal deficits continue, and Trudeau keeps claiming CO2 causes climate change. No surprise foreign direct investment has fallen sharply since Trudeau came into office in 2015 with more money leaving Canada than coming our way. With almost $500 billion dollars of net outlflows to the U.S., Trudeau has done more to improve the employment picture in America than Joe Biden.
The U.S. EB-5 Visa program contemplates that an investment of $900,000 will create at least 10 jobs. Trudeau’s inane policies have probably added $500,000,000,000 divided by $90,000 per job = about 5.5 million jobs. U.S. employment is less than 5 million higher than the pre-pandemic peak.
Trudeau, not Biden, has been the driving force in American job creation. He should emigrate to U.S.A. and run for Congress. Both countries would be better off.
NO where this disparity more pronunced than in israel/palestine.
GDP per capita, israel 42,000 us$, palestine 3,200 us$.
Seperated by an apartheid wall, palestinian has no sea, land, air rights.
And of course no humane rights.
So who is the victim?