Whatever happened to the liberals?

By Michael Derfler

Dennis Prager has a video called, “Left or Liberal” in which he gives six examples of differences between leftist and liberal positions on important socio-economic issues. Although the distinctions are correct, Mr. Prager does not suggest a common theme, or root cause for these distinctions. The motivation behind these different positions fits the distinction cited on Israpundit  (and updated here https://www.dennispragerismistaken.com/).

The leftist position is motivated by the fundamental assumption that in general, people are morally and intellectually incompetent; therefore society should not be free, but managed by an elite group of people. The liberal (and conservative) position is that people are morally and intellectually competent and therefore they should be free.[1] Let’s see how the idea that leftists see people as morally incompetent fits Mr. Prager’s six examples. The examples are: western civilization, nationalism, the USA, capitalism, free speech, and race.

Liberals have a positive view of western civilization. Leftists do not. They focus on whatever evils they can find in western civilization. Certainly, if they would take an honest look at other civilizations, they would also find evil. Leftists look at humanity and see evil. (See Understanding Evil: Selections from Rav Kook’s Eyn Ayah. Available here: )

Liberals have a positive view of nationalism. (Some prefer the word “patriotism” to the word “nationalism.”) Leftists do not. They focus on the negative, in this case, the evils that nationalism has produced. Difference creates violence because people cannot tolerate difference.

Liberals have a positive view of the USA. Leftists do not. Once again, they focus on the negative. This is in line with the condemnation of the existence of national identity and sovereignty.

Liberals have a positive view of capitalism, seeing it as the best cure for poverty. Of course leftists look for the evils of capitalism. They prefer government control of property and the means of production, because they see people on average as being neither morally nor intellectually competent for this role.

Liberals have a positive view of free speech. Leftists see free speech as being used for evil and therefore feel the need to protect people from the evils of free speech.

Liberals see race as unimportant. Leftists see race as especially important. Leftists seek to emphasize race because it is a constant reminder of past failings. This reminder is meant to lead us to the conclusion that people cannot be trusted to make decisions without reference to race, to judge a person by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin, because people are morally incompetent. Various racial groups must be either protected or re-educated by leftist “elites.”

Leftism and Christianity

Leftists believe that humanity (at least the great majority of it) is morally incompetent. Leftists also believe that we, as individuals and as nations, have no legitimate moral claim to private property or earnings.  These two ideas are in line with the Christian concepts of original sin and “grace.” Original sin says that we are corrupt; therefore, we do not belong in heaven except by “grace,” that is, charity. We cannot earn our way into heaven – our positive efforts are not essential to ourselves: “Whatever good I have done in the world, I did because I could not do otherwise; but the evil that I did – that was of myself!”[2]

Translate this to life on earth. We have no moral claim to our earnings so it is fine to take them away. Just as our moral “earnings” are stripped from us at the gates of heavenly paradise, our morally earned material earnings are stripped from us at the gates of the earthly leftist paradise. In place of the dignity of benefitting from the toil of our hands, we receive charity. In the place of justice, there is “social-justice,” that is, charity, also known as welfare.

This is true collectively as well. In the opinion of the leftist, no nation has a right to sovereignty over its collective decisions or its territory.  The very existence of separate nations is considered an expression of moral incompetence, if not outright evil. A nation’s territory is considered in one way or another stolen – if we go back far enough we will find that borders were established through acts of brutality. Borders should be broken down. Laws should ideally come from an international, universal governing body. If the workers of the world are incapable of uniting, a relatively small group of elite “managers” is not. This elite group will create a better, if not utopian world. One task of this governing body would be to appropriate and redistribute the wealth of nations.

The goal of the leftist is the expansion of kindness. His goal is universal benefit, which is certainly a worthy goal, if not the most worthy goal. However, the leftist’s fundamental assumptions undermine that goal. By degrading humanity, by insisting that it is corrupt, kindness is also degraded – the highest form of kindness, the gift of independence, must be considered destructive and therefore it must be foregone. The leftist favors a powerful and domineering centralized government that enforces uniformity of opinion because the general population cannot be trusted with freedom.

  Given the fundamental similarity between Christianity and leftism, we have to ask, why are Christians not typically leftist? Christians separate between church and state. Christians are aware of the religious nature of their fundamental views on life, so they are able to separate them from their political views. “My kingdom is not of this world….”[3]

In contrast, secular people are not quite aware of the religious origin of their fundamental views on life. Therefore, they are unable to “separate between church and state.” Their politics are based on Christian foundations: man is essentially corrupt and morality consists only of kindness – justice is a necessary evil. Kindness (without justice) breaks down all boundaries: the boundary of private property, the boundary between one nation and another, the boundaries of the family. It is not surprising that Western Europe, after largely abandoning its religion, is increasingly becoming a leftist society. (Hopefully, this trend will stop.)

The above is an excerpt from Michael Derfler’s book Aside from the Messiah: Distinguishing Judaism from Christianity available here: https://www.amazon.com/Aside-Messiah-Distinguishing-Judaism-Christianity/dp/1986009343/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1544934845&sr=1-1&keywords=Aside+from+the+messiah

[1] The existence of statements by conservatives and (real) liberals to the effect that people in power must be subject to limitations and oversight may appear to be based on the premise that because people are imperfect, they are not to be trusted to exercise good moral judgment. In my opinion, the idea behind creating checks on government power is not that people are morally incompetent. Rather, people cannot be expected to make the right decision when faced with enormous temptation. The power of monarchy, for example, presents temptations that most people cannot overcome. However, under most circumstances, we expect people to do what is right.

[2] Hans Christian Andersen, “On Judgment Day”

[3] John 18:36