Posted on 09/02/2014 10:08:33 AM PDT by walford
There are some aspects of Modern Leftism that have evolved from the Divine Right of Kings -- particularly amongst the elites.
Divine Right holds that one is born into a class of the wealthy and powerful due to the Will of the Almighty. Aristocrats-by-birth in agrarian medievalist Europe justified their relative wealth in those terms. So those who have economic success and political influence are so because they have been Chosen while the rest are by definition inferior in Divine blessing in their earthly poverty. Left to their own devices, those born poor would destroy themselves and thus need to be managed by their Betters as parents would their children.
Aristocrats saw the Enlightenment and the subsequent limited representative governments [and the consequent Industrial Revolution] as bordering on heretical; people who otherwise would be poor would be able to rise up through their own effort and ingenuity. In their eyes, the “self-made” were thwarting Divine Will.
Slave-holders in the Antebellum South echoed their Aristocratic forebears in believing that they were doing black slaves a service by managing their lives and making their physical abilities productive. Otherwise, they would be living the ‘short, brutish’ lives of savages. This idea is carried forth to this day as the Party of Jim Crow still holds that blacks and other minorities cannot take care of themselves w/o help from whites [and minorities who have been properly vetted] who are are smarter and know better. The idea that minorities could be empowered to see to their own personal and economic security is viewed with a combination of fear and derision by the Left.
This mindset developed in the Leftist elites in secularized form by continuing this distrust of ordinary people rising from poverty by hard work and invention. To this day, they still (quietly) believe that the masses are inherently inferior [NASCAR-watching, Bud Lite-swilling, Bible-thumping rubes living in flyover country] and consider themselves beneficent in “volunteering” to control their lives for their own good. They don’t trust the masses with complete information, which is why Leftist education is often indoctrination while Leftist news media and entertainment are often propagandized.
Popular will that cannot be manipulated must be thwarted.
To a modern Leftist, anyone can invent something; it takes special talent to cultivate connections. Only a few are gifted to understand the progression of human history and this knowledge is not amenable to reason. This is what makes their position a matter of faith and how their secularized version of Divine Right is justified in their minds. And of course, anyone born into a prominent Leftist family is the equivalent of royalty [e.g. the Kennedys].
Those who attain economic success, w/o being vetted by the existing ruling class used to be contemptuously referred to as Noveau Riche. This is particularly so if the person created a business, invented something or otherwise bypassed the accepted means of rising up through the ranks. Leftists’ means of success often entails climbing over bodies in sociopathic, political blood-sport; they certainly don't believe in sharing or redistributing hard-won political influence. So, in enriching himself, an industrialist had to have been dishonest or criminal in some way in their eyes. Obviously, he climbed over the bodies of his workers.
The elites within the Left believe that the only legitimate means of attaining economic success is via the media, politics [and law] or the entertainment industry. In all of those cases, people are vetted by the crème of the elite. Being accepted only coincidentally is the result of hard work. What is more important is that they LIKE you.
Stark examples of this process in action are the various talent shows and reality programs wherein Our Betters are empaneled to judge if an aspiring protégé is good enough to be accepted as one of them -- using entirely subjective and fleeting standards.
Hence, many of them admire the celebrity tooling around in her pink Bentley, but begrudge the corporate CEO his gray Mercedes.
The left does support a hereditary ruling class, just like Europe. Union contracts for some American dock workers, and Mexican teachers, for example, allow children of union workers to inherit the position of their parents.
Good observations all. This explains some of what we see as irrationality on the left. They are just following the logic of their faulty assumptions right over the cliff. This probably suggests an apologetics that challenges those assumptions, much as one would do with a religious cult, because functionally that’s what we are dealing with.
And lest we delude ourselves into thinking rationality will kick in at the last moment and save us all from their self-endangering behavior, it is worth remembering what Jim Jones was able to accomplish with his little cult. Saying no to the koolaid has never been more important.
They support elitism, but they make no pretense of basing in on any “divine” right,
just on their humanistic, evolution-based assumption of superiority.
It’s easy to see, as well, that all this “environmentalism” and dietary studies are nothing more than well-veiled attempts to keep the “commoners” from using up the resources the elite see as rightfully theirs.
The elites within the Left believe that the only legitimate means of attaining economic success is via the media, politics [and law] or the entertainment industry. In all of those cases, people are vetted by the crème of the elite. Being accepted only coincidentally is the result of hard work. What is more important is that they LIKE you.To quote myself, an old tag line:
The idea around which “liberalism” coheres is that
NOTHING ACTUALLY MATTERS EXCEPT PR.
“They support elitism, but they make no pretense of basing in on any “divine” right, just on their humanistic, evolution-based assumption of superiority.”
The top elites amongst the Left know that Obamacare will result in less health care at a higher price. As it is with everything they advocate, their stated intention is far away from their real one.
The real intention is to make it so the ever-shrinking middle class and poor have to come crawling to a commissar for health care; they must justify their continued health and very existence in political terms.
The calculation is made whether keeping the elderly, disabled, chronically ill are more expensive to keep alive than any future tax contributions they may make.
Health care will also be given based upon connections or membership in a politically favored demographic. So one person living in flyover country might not get his cancer treatment, but another may get his/her/its “gender reassignment” surgery.
And yet those of us who are against this are supposed to be the heartless ones.
“...want to make very kind of decision”
...want to make EVERY kind of decision
Ping
Interesting essay. As this is an area of particular interest to you I might suggest a few books dealing with these issues.
First, the definitive recent study of this is in Thomas Sowell’s “Vision” series. These are “The Vision of the Anointed (Self Congratulations as a Basis for Social Policy)”, “A Conflict of Visions (Ideological Origins of Political Struggles)” and “The Quest for Cosmic Justice.” This wonderful series of books deals with the roots of the mindsets and why the cross all boundaries of thinking.
Gertrude Himmelfarb in “The Roads to Modernity: The British, French and American Enlightenments” shows quite clearly how the French Enlightenment icons were monarchists despite our wanting to associate them with the supposed anti-monarchy of the French Revolution.
The insight provided by the three books of Thomas Sowell is probably some of the best time investment in reading anyone can make who is thinking about and understanding the leftist mindset.
Yes, the French Revolution more typified how violent overthrow works in practice than the American version — which was the exception.
What usually happens is an autocrat is replaced by a tyrant. That is why those who advocate for “revolution” are dangerous; they don’t know or care what happens after society is brought down. They just have faith that it will be better because they believe in Marxist dialectical materialism.
“...if it doesn’t assume corruption or manipulation, then it assumes that it is inherently immoral for some to earn a great deal more than others. That is, in fact, what many of the leftist community organizers believe, but it is out of phase with the American idea — not to mention morally wrong to demonize the successful, or else God wouldn’t have prohibited covetousness.”
Those who attain economic success, w/o being vetted by the existing ruling class used to be contemptuously referred to as Noveau Riche. This is particularly so if the person created a business, invented something or otherwise bypassed the accepted means of rising up through the ranks. Leftists’ means of success often entails climbing over bodies in sociopathic, political blood-sport; they certainly don’t believe in sharing or redistributing hard-won political influence. So, in enriching himself, an industrialist had to have been dishonest or criminal in some way in their eyes. Obviously, he climbed over the bodies of his workers.
The elites within the Left believe that the only legitimate means of attaining economic success is via the media, politics [and law] or the entertainment industry. In all of those cases, they are playing a game that is an entirely human invention — and potential members are vetted by the crème of the elite. Being accepted only coincidentally is the result of hard work. What is more important is that they LIKE you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3199679/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.