How Liberals Lost A Liberal (Why Many Democrats Became Republicans Alert)

Townhall ^ | 4/15/2008 | Dennis Prager

[goldstategop]

The Democratic Party's preoccupation with the question of when America will leave Iraq rather than with how America will win in Iraq reminds me of how and why this nearly lifelong liberal and Democrat became identified as a conservative and Republican activist.

I have identified as liberal all my life. How could I not? I was raised a Jew in New York City, where I did graduate work in the social sciences at Columbia University. It is almost redundant to call a New York Jewish intellectual a liberal. In fact, I never voted for a Republican candidate for president until Ronald Reagan in 1980. But I have not voted for a Democrat since 1980.

What happened? Did I suddenly change my values in 1980? Or did liberalism? Obviously, one (or both) of us changed.

As I know my values, the answer is as clear as it could be -- it is liberalism that has changed, not I. In a word, liberalism became leftism. Or, to put it another way -- since my frame of reference is moral values -- liberalism's moral compass broke. It did so during the Vietnam War, though I could not bring myself to vote Republican until 1980. The emotional and psychological hold that the Democratic Party and the word "liberal" have on those who consider themselves liberal is stronger than the ability of most of these individuals to acknowledge just how far from liberal values contemporary liberalism and the Democratic Party have strayed.

Here are four key examples that should prompt any consistent liberal to vote Republican and oppose "progressives" and others on the left.

The issue that began the emotionally difficult task of getting this liberal to identify with conservatives and become an active Republican was Communism. I had always identified the Democratic Party and liberalism with anti-Communism. Indeed, the labor movement and the Democratic Party actually led American opposition to Communism. It was the Democrat Harry Truman, not Republicans, who made the difficult and unpopular decision to fight another war just a few years after World War II -- the war against Chinese and Korean Communists. It was Democrats -- John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson -- who also led the war against Chinese and Vietnamese Communists.

Then Vietnam occurred, and Democrats and liberals (in academia, labor and the media) abandoned that war and abandoned millions of Asians to totalitarianism and death, defamed America's military, became anti-war instead of anti-evil, became anti-anti-Communist instead of anti-Communist, and embraced isolationism, a doctrine I and others previously had always associated with conservatives and the Republican Party. This change was perfectly exemplified in 1972, when the Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern ran on the platform "Come home, America."

This in turn led to the liberal embrace of the immoral doctrine of moral equivalence. As I was taught at Columbia, where I studied international relations, America was equally responsible for the Cold War, and there was little moral difference between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. They were essentially two superpowers, each looking out for its imperialist self-interest. I will never forget when the professor of my graduate seminar in advanced Communist Studies, Zbigniew Brzezinski, chided me for using the word "totalitarian" to describe the Soviet Union.

I recall, too, asking the late eminent liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, in a public forum in Los Angeles in the late 1970s, if he would say that America was, all things considered, a better, i.e., more moral, society than Soviet society. He said he would not.

It was therefore not surprising, only depressingly reinforcing of my view of what had happened to liberals, when liberals and Democrats condemned President Ronald Reagan for describing the Soviet Union as an "evil empire."

Identifying and confronting evil remains the Achilles' heel of liberals, progressives and the rest of the left. It was not only Communism that post-Vietnam liberals refused to identify as evil and forcefully confront. Every major liberal newspaper in America condemned Israel's 1981 destruction of Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor (in which one person -- a French agent there to aid the Israeli bombers, and who therefore knowingly risked his life -- was killed). As The New York Times editorialized: "Israel's sneak attack … was an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression."

Most Democrats in Congress even opposed the first Gulf War, sanctioned by the United Nations and international law, against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and its bloody annexation of Kuwait.

And today, the liberal and Democratic world's only concern with regard to Iraq, where America is engaged in the greatest current battle against organized evil, is how soon America can withdraw.

There were an even larger number of domestic issues that alienated this erstwhile liberal and Democrat. But nothing quite compares with liberal and progressive abandonment of the war against evil, the most important venture the human race must engage in every generation.

I can understand why a leftist would vote for the party not one of whose contenders for the presidency uttered the words "Islamic terror" in a single presidential debate. But I still cannot understand why a true liberal would.

[a_chronic_whiner]

I would have proudly worn the label “liberal” just a year ago.
So I can definitely see where the author is coming from. It’s difficult to predict any trends, the ability of humans to rationalize their view of the world cannot be underestimated. However, if you know human nature well, and you know where someone is coming from (that’s the tricky part), you can easily predict what their next move is or how they will react to something.

[a_chronic_whiner]

Neither party is perfect, I would vote for the man/woman who would serve my country best. But I agree though, the liberal media is despicable (The NY slimes especially), their censorship of Conservative viewpoints is doing tremendous harm to our country and plays on people’s emotion without any care for intellectual honesty.

[Seeing More Clearly Now]

Zbigniew Brzezinski had a high profile in the 1970s. He was so puffed up and self-impressed that the media considered him an “intellectual” who could give the enemy’s point of view that he succeeded only in serving as an apologist for totalitarianism.

[ripley]

“how liberals lost a liberal”

welcome back from regimented, enforced, insanity.

[Tribune7]

2 a: Often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard . . .

I guess I'm a liberal too. :-)

[srmorton]

Great article. Thanks for posting. Having lived through most of the time period Dennis is describing, I saw the metamorphosis he is talking about. I have never voted for anyone other than a Republican for POTUS with Gerald Ford in 1976 being the first. I am very much socially conservative, so the Democrats were never really an option for me.

[alwaysconservative]

Great article; thanks for posting! Prager is, as always, a delight.

My personal metamorphosis came around 1992. Up to that point, I’d been a “moderate” Republican with strong libertarian tendencies. The despicable tactics of the Clintons to self-righteously smear anyone to the right of them as being knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, and Bill’s patent imagery of himself as the new Messiah (promising to be the “new convenant”) literally sent chills down my back. The harder he and his “co-president” pushed left, the harder I tacked right. The McGoverns, the Carters, and the Clintons changed the face of liberalism into some poor, wretched excuse for socialism and totalitarianism.

With apologies to Bob Dole’s biting wit, this presidential campaign is about “see no evil” (McCain and his overly-idealistic comity with this country’s traitors), “hear no evil” (Obama and his toxic pastor), and “evil” (She-who-must-not-be-elected).

[Merta]

Agreed but that seems to be the only war, besides possibly the Civil War for Northern Liberals, that our Liberals will even find a slight time to like(or at least the Hollywood Liberals do not posit Anti-War themes in the conflict). However, even still, they don’t automatically like what we did with their lollygagging about the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It seems that Liberals are very much against our interventionism on Fascism(until we were attacked which was after breaking the Hitler-Stalin pact so even the big Liberals in the FDR Administration didn’t care until they declared war on us), Communism, Radical Islam. FDR is canonized as a saint for getting us involved in WWII but in all reality we only got involved in Germany because Hitler declared war on us, and we got involved in Japan because we got hit.(in that case FDR was a typical Democrat)

Yes the lend-lease program was good and it possibly helped the British to fend off the Nazis, but it didn’t stop them from doing more and more. I really like the fact that we got into Iraq before they could attack us, and have given accountability to Saddam himself. Probably the most interesting thing about WWII is that, if I am correct, we did not kill any of the dictators or military people who helped to get us there. Mussolini was killed by his own people, Hitler killed himself and if I am not correct Tojo committed hari kari. Even Stalin was killed by his own men in rumors that he was poisoned.

Going after Saddam, and having a quick execution is sort of like the Age of Accountability. Dictators beware.

[Ditto]

After Japan’s unconditional surrender in 1945, U.S. General Douglas MacArthur issued orders for the arrest of the first forty alleged war criminals, including Tojo. Soon, Tojo’s home in Setagaya was besieged with newsmen and photographers. Inside, a doctor named Suzuki had marked Tojo’s chest with charcoal to indicate the location of his heart. When American military police surrounded the house on September 8, 1945, they heard a muffled shot from inside. Major Paul Kraus and a group of military police burst in, followed by George Jones, a reporter for The New York Times. Tojo had shot himself in the chest, but despite shooting directly through the mark, the bullet missed his heart. At 4:29, now disarmed and with blood gushing out of his chest, Tojo began to talk, and two Japanese reporters recorded his words. “I am very sorry it is taking me so long to die,” he murmured. “The Greater East Asia War was justified and righteous. I am very sorry for the nation and all the races of the Greater Asiatic powers. I wait for the righteous judgment of history. I wished to commit suicide but sometimes that fails.”[10]

He survived and was arrested. After recovering from his injuries, Tojo was moved to the Sugamo Prison. He was tried by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East for war crimes and found guilty of the following crimes:

count 1 (waging wars of aggression, and war or wars in violation of international law)
count 27 (waging unprovoked war against the Republic of China)
count 29 (waging aggressive war against the United States)
count 31 (waging aggressive war against the British Commonwealth of Nations)
count 32 (waging aggressive war against the Netherlands)
count 33 (waging aggressive war against France)
count 54 (ordering, authorizing, and permitting inhumane treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs) and others)
Hideki Tojo accepted full responsibility in the end for his actions during the war. Here is passage from his statement, which he made during his war crimes trial. :

“ It is natural that I should bear entire responsibility for the war in general, and, needless to say, I am prepared to do so. Consequently, now that the war has been lost, it is presumably necessary that I be judged so that the circumstances of the time can be clarified and the future peace of the world be assured. Therefore, with respect to my trial, it is my intention to speak frankly, according to my recollection, even though when the vanquished stands before the victor, who has over him the power of life and death, he may be apt to toady and flatter. I mean to pay considerable attention to this in my actions, and say to the end that what is true is true and what is false is false. To shade one’s words in flattery to the point of untruthfulness would falsify the trial and do incalculable harm to the nation, and great care must be taken to avoid this. ”

He was sentenced to death on November 12, 1948 and executed by hanging on December 23, 1948. In his final statements he apologized for the atrocities committed by the Japanese military and urged the American military to show compassion toward the Japanese people, who had suffered devastating air attacks and the two atomic bombs.[11]

[Ditto]

In a word, liberalism became leftism.

I think it is more correct to say that the Democrat party, and the old 'liberal' institutions, were subverted and eventually taken over by radical leftists. Leftists are not liberals in any sense of the word and we on the right should be more precise in our language.

There are very few 'liberals' remaining in the Democrat party and none in leadership positions. The far left has completely taken that party over.

IMHO, liberals are not the enemy and never were. They and conservatives had the same goals in mind, even if their policies to reach those goals differed.

The left is the enemy. Their goals are completely different than the goals of either liberals of conservatives.

[Merta]

OK, I knew somebody who died by the sword, I think it was the one who ordered the Kamikazes.

Thank you for that report, indeed I may apologize again as I learn lots of things here. At least my rant and rave some months ago about how the Iraq War is special because Mao, Milosevic, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini didn’t die by our hands(at least directly or indirectly as the Shiites made Saddam sort of like the Mussolini of the Middle East) wasn’t altogether correct. I do put a bigger high-light, though, on the Emperor of Japan because he was the leader of the country(that is why I might ignore Tojo or seem ignorant). (to put it frankly I also learned about the war trials for the Japanese on here)

[Ditto]

Well, Tojo tried to kill himself but failed. At the trial, he pretty much accepted all blame, which left the Emperor off the hook. That is what MacArthur and the Allies wanted. They were afraid they would not be able to control Japan if they were forced to hang Hirohito.

Tojo was going to be hung no matter what (and he deserved it) so he decided to take responsibility for other stuff that really belonged on the Emperor's and other members of the royal families' heads.

[MrB]

liberal - root word liberty.

One who is in favor of maximal individual freedom.

Now tell me, what freedoms do modern leftists (misnamed as “liberals”) support, other than unfettered sexual behavior?

Nothing - everything else is to be controlled.

[Merta]

Ah, I knew about Hirohito and how he lived a very long life until the 1980s I think it was. We also got him to surrender his livelihood as being the Last Emperor of Japan. In all reality, I don’t know much about Tojo.(I never knew that he got hung by us as a penalty for the deaths inflicted on America)

It was only a few years ago(I am 21 years old so I still have a lot of catching up to do) when I heard Tojo’s name instead of Hirohito as the name to use alongside Mussolini and Hitler. I was sort of curious since I don’t think I was taught much about him in history class. It was more about Hirohito but his name possibly did come up a few times. OK, thanks for the info.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

I guess I'm a liberal too. :-)

Sure - we all are. That's why "liberal" was such a useful label for socialists to adopt when "socialism" failed as a brand in America.

Why were socialists able to adopt it? Because journalism's fundamental bias is that journalism - the frenetic reporting of all bad news - is important. And that implies that journalists - implicit or explicit critics of whoever has responsibility for getting things done - are important. The idea that the critic is more important than the doer is the fundamental tenent of socialism. That's why I consider

"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena -  Theodore Roosevelt

to be a fine definition of American "conservatism" (actually, in a literal sense, liberalism). Consequently socialists are simpatico with journalists, and journalists assign socialists whatever label the socialists want. Likewise, journalists assign to actual liberals, whom they despise, a term which actually applies to no or very few Americans - "conservative."

Actual liberals - American so-called "conservatives" - have nothing in common with socialism, hence nothing in common with Communism and nothing in common with Fascism. The Fascist Party was founded by Benito Mussolini, who broke with Communism - but not with socialism - and was a working journalist when he seized control of the Italian government.

You will note the strong antipathy in this post towards journalism, and you will ask my opinion of the First Amendment. I think it is a fine idea, and I think we should try it again. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, newspapers were independent of each other and highly opinionated (a la Rush Limbaugh). For example, Hamilton sponsored a newspaper in which to attack Jefferson's politics - and to defend himself and his policies from attack by the newspaper Jefferson sponsored! The very last thing which the First Amendment implies is that any newspaper is or even should be objective. Clearly the First Amendment forbids the federal government to require that newspapers be objective - and it makes no reference to any distinction between the body of a paper and any "editorial page."

How did we get from the free press as I describe the founding era to the markedly tendentious so-called "objective" journalism of today? The answer lies in the telegraph - the telegraph and the Associated Press. The Associated Press was/is an aggressive monopoly on journalism. In fact, it essentially created journalism as we know it; the independent and highly opinionated newspapers which existed before the AP do not even qualify for the name "journalism" as we use it now because they did not have independent sources of news not in principle available to readers independently of reading the newspaper. In reality, of course, they still don't - if you are willing and disciplined enough to wait until other sources of information catch up with journalism's reports. And the intrinsic bias of Associated Press journalism is against your being patient and waiting for events to ripen and be digested. Associated Press journalism is about always having something fresh to tell you which you did not know until they told you.

The advent of the Associated Press monopoly did not go unchallenged; it was natural to question the reasonableness of having a single nationwide news source feeding all our newspapers. When that question was raised, the AP's answer was that it included newspapers of all shades of opinion - the AP was objective. The fallacy in that argument, in addition to the fact that nobody can prove their own objectivity, is that AP journalism transformed the business model of its constituent newspapers from opinion to putative "fact." And it made the newspapers reliant upon each other for the reliability of what they were printing. Consequently all members of the AP had a business reason to claim that not just their own newspaper, but newspapers in general, were "objective." The famously combative newspapers which didn't agree about anything suddenly had a compelling reason to agree on a lot.

So now, if a CBS News files a report claiming that Bush skipped out on his Texas Air National Guard commitments based on patently fraudulent source documents, and if CBS News then proceeds to circle the wagons and conduct an "independent investigation" for no other reason than to "learn" that CBS had acted "in good faith without political animus," no other part of journalism calls "BS!" Certainly not in the full-throated, take-no-prisoners style which is business as usual for all of journalism when fraud in any other business, or in the military or the police departments, is detected.

The Market for Conservative-Based News

[Tribune7]

I think JimRob ought to start calling this a liberal site.

And I think you are right btw.

[Ditto]

American "conservatism" (actually, in a literal sense, liberalism).

Agree totally. When people ask my philosophy, I say that they may call me a Conservative if they wish, but I consider myself to be a Classic Liberal in the same terms as Washington, Adams, Jefferson and the rest of the Founders were also Liberals who got their ideals from the Scottish Enlightenment.

It's amazing how many so-called literate lefties have absolutely no idea what I am talking about, but they are still convinced that I must be some well camouflaged toothless, illiterate, red-necked racist and religious fanatic. (See Obama's words)

The academia and main stream media has done their propagandizing very well. It is nearly impossible to have a serious political discussion with even 'educated' people. They have been programmed to see they world in stereotypes, not philosophy.

[PGalt]

Thanks very much for the ping. Very good article. Great post in a thread of great posts. Thanks to all.

Seeing Ronald Reagan give a speech on a chilly, rainy night in the Sears shopping center in Lincoln Park Michigan in the early 80’s, when he was running for a second term...changed my life forever. Before that, I always voted Democrat, never giving politics much thought because my parents were Democrats. I remember telling my wife that I went to see the President. I recall saying, “You’ve gotta hear him. He thinks like we think.”

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[dbz77]

He became Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser. Somehow, I don't remember him being an advocate of confronting Soviet expansionism. That was never a goal of the Carter Administration in the late 1970s.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan changed that. That, along with airline deregulation, was the only good thing Carter did. Ironic that today's leftists now want to say that Carter's efforts to strike back against the Soviets were a bad thing.