Riffling through the many articles posted on American Thinker I came across the following piece from Danusha V. Goska in what I believe is her inaugural piece for AT. It is a rather lengthy expose` on how she finally came to the realization that she didn’t wish to adhere to her leftist ideology any more, and how she escaped the strangling tethers of the liberal democrat ideology.
In plain terms, Liberalism is about love and hate; they hate; we love. “Leftism” is based on fear, and Leftists expect us to be afraid of them. Turn that around and they don’t know how to handle us. Once they are confused hit them with logic and their entire day and week is ruined. Lefties are useless without stealing our hard work and earnings. Take that away from them and they slowly fade away. Which makes them no different from common criminals who should be dealt with accordingly; the liberal democrat ideology.
“Leftism” is based on a lie. A system that entices the naïve and amoral that they are entitled to a perpetual free lunch if you give them total control over your life; which in truth, only leads to immiseration and slavery. To perpetuate a lie, it is impossible to argue from reason, facts, or the truth. Example:
“In the 1960s and 70s a philosophical movement called “postmodernism” developed among humanities professors displeased at being deposed by science, which they regarded as right-leaning. Postmodernism adopted ideas from cultural anthropology and relativity theory to argue that truth is relative and subject to the assumptions and prejudices of the observer. Science is just one of many ways of knowing, they argued, neither more nor less valid than others, like those of Aborigines, Native Americans or women. Furthermore, they defined science as “the way of knowing” among Western white men and a tool of cultural oppression.”
Significantly, Danusha hits on what was so important to new legal immigrants when they came (and still come) to America. Our capitalist society was/is the only real equalizer for these immigrants. Only under capitalism could the truly downtrodden have a hope of ever attaining what was usually only the purview, that the hereditary wealthy kept for themselves exclusively, and that would be property and land OWNERSHIP. Especially in America, could the lowliest person be able to attain and retain what he/she earned. Many of the European immigrants came from areas where everything in their lives was actually the property of someone else and they only rented from that other person. Even my native Great Britain had large areas where this was the norm clear up to the 19th century at least. Most of Britain is under the ownership of what we termed “Crown Lands” (ie belonging to the extensive Royal Family). So for those new immigrants, they now became not only householders, but property owners as well. A sign of wealth indeed, and all due to capitalism. The liberal democrat ideology laid bare…
Her opener …
How far left was I? So far left my beloved uncle was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party in a Communist country. When I returned to his Slovak village to buy him a mass card, the priest refused to sell me one. So far left that a self-identified terrorist proposed marriage to me. So far left I was a two-time Peace Corps volunteer and I have a degree from UC Berkeley. So far left that my Teamster mother used to tell anyone who would listen that she voted for Gus Hall, Communist Party chairman, for president. I wore a button saying “Eat the Rich.” To me it wasn’t a metaphor.
I voted Republican in the last presidential election.
Below are the top ten reasons I am no longer a leftist. This is not a rigorous comparison of theories. This list is idiosyncratic, impressionistic, and intuitive. It’s an accounting of the milestones on my herky-jerky journey.
In the late 1990s I was reading Anatomy of the Spirit, a then recent bestseller by Caroline Myss.
Myss described having lunch with a woman named Mary. A man approached Mary and asked her if she were free to do a favor for him on June 8th. No, Mary replied, I absolutely cannot do anything on June 8th because June 8th is my incest survivors’ meeting and we never let each other down! They have suffered so much already! I would never betray incest survivors!
Myss was flabbergasted. Mary could have simply said “Yes” or “No.”
Reading this anecdote, I felt that I was confronting the signature essence of my social life among leftists. We rushed to cast everyone in one of three roles: victim, victimizer, or champion of the oppressed. We lived our lives in a constant state of outraged indignation. I did not want to live that way anymore. I wanted to cultivate a disposition of gratitude. I wanted to see others, not as victims or victimizers, but as potential friends, as loved creations of God. I wanted to understand the point of view of people with whom I disagreed without immediately demonizing them as enemy oppressors.
I recently attended a training session for professors on a college campus. The presenter was a new hire in a tenure-track position. He opened his talk by telling us that he had received an invitation to share a festive meal with the president of the university. I found this to be an enviable occurrence and I did not understand why he appeared dramatically aggrieved. The invitation had been addressed to “Mr. and Mrs. X.” Professor X was a bachelor. He felt slighted. Perhaps the person who had addressed his envelope had disrespected him because he is a member of a minority group.
Rolling his eyes, Prof. X went on to say that he was wary of accepting a position on this lowly commuter campus, with its working-class student body. The disconnect between leftists’ announced value of championing the poor and the leftist practice of expressing snobbery for them stung me. Already vulnerable students would be taught by a professor who regarded association with them as a burden, a failure, and a stigma.
Barack Obama is president. Kim and Kanye and Brad and Angelina are members of multiracial households. One might think that professors finally have cause to teach their students to be proud of America for overcoming racism. Not so fast, Professor X warned. His talk was on microaggression, defined as slights that prove that America is still racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist, that is, discriminatory against handicapped people.
Professor X projected a series of photographs onto a large screen. In one, commuters in business suits, carrying briefcases, mounted a flight of stairs. This photo was an act of microaggression. After all, Professor X reminded us, handicapped people can’t climb stairs.
I appreciate Professor X’s desire to champion the downtrodden, but identifying a photograph of commuters on stairs as an act of microaggression and evidence that America is still an oppressive hegemon struck me as someone going out of his way to live his life in a state of high dudgeon. On the other hand, Prof. X could have chosen to speak of his own working-class students with more respect.
Yes, there is a time and a place when it is absolutely necessary for a person to cultivate awareness of his own pain, or of others’ pain. Doctors instruct patients to do this — “Locate the pain exactly; calculate where the pain falls on a scale of one to ten; assess whether the pain is sharp, dull, fleeting, or constant.” But doctors do this for a reason. They want the patient to heal, and to move beyond the pain. In the left, I found a desire to be in pain constantly, so as always to have something to protest, from one’s history of incest to the inability of handicapped people to mount flights of stairs.