Liberal Contradictions

Liberal academics are fond of castigating capitalism as riven with contradictions. They tell us that market-based economies must inevitably fail because they are prey to inconsistencies that will ultimately lead to their downfall.
They say, for instance, that capitalism is based upon greed. Avaricious business people presumably create economic growth because they hunger after wealth, but once they obtain it they will wallow in luxury thereby undercutting their motivation to keep the pie expanding.
Progressive liberalism is thought to be free of such self-defeating baggage. Its goal of universal equality is regarded as pure and unproblematic. And yet liberalism too is subject to inconsistencies. In fact, its internal conflicts are currently more on display than those of conservatives. Capitalism, after all, has continued to grow despite having generated more affluence than any other system in history.
Meanwhile, liberals are fond of styling themselves as “social democrats.” They seek to separate themselves from communists by emphasizing their dedication to democratic principles. While they too want to bring complete parity between the rich and poor, they intend to do so while upholding republican institutions.
Nevertheless, this is not what we witnessed in the recent election. To quote our president, his party got “shellacked,” but not because it ignored the will of the American people. Instead of acknowledging ample evidence that a majority of the electorate was opposed to Obamacare and cap-and-trade, he refused to admit that he, Nancy, and Harry had pushed their extreme agenda via every dirty trick in the book.
But this performance was a function of a deeply held liberal conviction. Liberals believe they are smarter and nicer than most people. Self-described as “the best and brightest,” they are convinced they alone know what is in the national interest. As a result, they are not democratic. To the contrary, they are committed elitists.
The evidence for this is conclusive. Consider the electoral map after November 2nd. It was almost entirely red, except for thin strips along the West Coast and the Northeast. One might suppose that this to due to salt water poisoning, but no: it is a consequence of the intellectual pretensions of the cultural leaders clustered in these areas. Amazingly, they approved of the administration’s programs.
So assured are these folks of their moral supremacy that in San Francisco the city fathers effectively banned MacDonald Happy Meals. Determined to keep children from consuming empty calories, they decided to compel parents to purchase only foods the elite thought best.
Likewise, so assured are liberals of their own preeminence that they attributed their electoral defeat to “a failure to communicate.” Despite their control of the mainstream media and numerous speeches in defense of their policies, they were apparently unsuccessful in getting their message across.
But why was this so? The answer can only be that the people at large were not intelligent enough to appreciate their own interests. Liberals sought to protect them from their own foolishness, but they could not be made to see what was before their eyes.
In other words, liberals believe that ordinary people are too dim to govern themselves. What, however, is this other than anti-democratic? Liberals say they love common people, nonetheless they intend to lead them where they ought to go.
In fact, liberals are in deep denial. They are utterly oblivious of the fact that it was their policies, not their words, which turned off the voters. It was Obamacare and a stimulus package that failed to stimulate that left people desiring a change.
Even more importantly, liberals are in deep denial about their anti-democratic impulses. They do not realize that their intellectual pretensions are grounded in a belief in their inherent superiority. Nor do they recognize that their political domination comes at the expense of the less powerful.
All this contradicts the Liberal Creed. It is an inconsistency at the heart of the liberal message that dooms its long-term prospects. –How about this for an unexpected irony?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University