The Decline of the Liberal Left

Moral Relativism, also known as Situational Ethics, is what has caused the decline of the Liberal Left. It began with the with the idea that "Nothing is always right or always wrong." Ironically, this is an idea that they feel is always right. It is, however, an idea that is easily proved wrong. For example, it's always wrong to oppress people, or to commit genocide.

Moral Relativity has been combined with several other ideas to create what we think of as the modern liberal. Here is the way it went:

In the nineteen-sixties the idea that we should tolerate each others differences (at that time primarily racial differences) was pushed hard in schools and the media. This was, and is, a noble idea. It was referred to as "Racial Tolerance."

Racial Tolerance gradually became simply "Tolerance," and began to include under it's umbrella tolerance for other cultures, nationalities, religions and forms of sexuality. Still a laudable concept. Our Declaration of Independence begins with it, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

The idea of "Tolerance" began to meld with the idea that "Nothing is always right or always wrong" and became "Nothing of ours is better than something of theirs" and then more recently mutated into "Nothing of ours is ever as good as anything of theirs."

This can be seen today in the fact that the Left is only upset by the use of force when it is the U.S. using force. In the fact that, if the U.S. has a vested interest in the use of force, it is unacceptable to the Left, but if there is no benefit to the U.S. at all the use of force is mandatory. Take, for example the difference in the Left's resistance to the use military force in Iraq (How dare you?) and their desire for the use of force in Liberia (How dare you not?). In Iraq we have many vested interests, in Liberia none.

It can also be seen in the drive to multi-nationalism and the desire to subjugate the will of the U.S. to the will of the United Nations. They believe that only other nations could be fair and impartial enough to decide whether the U.S. is threatened enough to require the use of force to protect itself. They believe that only other nations could be fair and impartial enough to try Saddam Hussein for his crimes against the Iraqis. The U.S. is, in their eyes, incapable of the exercise of power or judgment in any way other than bullying self-interest.

It can be seen in the Left's approach to Abortion. Does this sound familiar: "I don't believe in it myself, I think it's horrible, but who am I to tell other people what to think?" They can't see that there is an absolute involved; that Killing is bad, and should only be done to protect yourself and others from people who will not be dissuaded in any other way.

They also believe that the Government is better suited to taking care of us than we are ourselves. In this case the Government is the "other" who's "everything" is better than our own.

Our culture is not as good as Europe's, our leaders are not as smart as the United Nations, our medical system is not as good as Canada's. Our fill-in-the-blank is not as good as their fill-in-the-blank. In an all-out war they believe that the enemy has a greater right to defend themselves than we do. What it comes down to is that they don't believe our culture/country/lives are worth fighting for because they aren't worth a damn. Because nothing of ours is ever as good as anything of theirs.

Comments

[Strange]

But most liberals and "leftists" are not moral relativists. They may be moral pluralists, recognizing that there are different moral systems and that people should be able to practice their own ethics, within certain limits. The certain limits has always been attached to almost all liberalism, and those limits are defined by the ethos that runs across all forms of tolerance, namely, that any practice stop short of infringing on the rights and freedoms of other individuals.

[Sean]

Strange,

Your comment reads like a manifesto for moral relativism. Your statement, "But most liberals and ‘leftists’ are not moral relativists," shows a profound misunderstanding of liberal philosophy. The hallmark of liberalism is moral relativism.

The idea that limits on liberalism are “defined by the ethos that runs across all forms of tolerance, namely, that any practice stop short of infringing on the rights and freedoms of other individuals,” is preposterous in light of the entire history of liberal governmental policy.

Let’s just take a look at one teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy, little policy called “progressive taxation.” By this method liberals have stolen money from people who have earned it, and given it to people who have not. They have infringed on the right for equal protection under the law. They have infringed in the right to be treated the same as other people. You can’t say it’s right to take 60% of this persons money but take only 5 % of that persons money (or in the case of 50% percent of our population, 0%) and say it is ok, without ascribing to moral relativism.

Lets look at another, not so teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy, little policy called “affirmative action” or, as it should be called, racism. By insisting on quotas in hiring, and promotion, and enrollment leftists have changed the color of the people being discriminated against, but they have not changed what racism is. Racism is wrong. You can’t say, “racism is wrong unless it is against white people.” It’s just wrong. To say anything else is to ascribe wholesale to moral relativism.

Answer this question honestly: Do you believe that abortion is a good thing? Or is it a bad thing? I have never met anyone who said abortion is a good thing. Ever. The most ringing endorsement I have ever heard for abortion, is this: “I would never have one myself, but who am I to choose for other people?” This one statement shows the moral bankruptcy of liberalism, the cowardice of leftism, and the foundation of moral relativism supporting them both.

[Ryan]

Moral relativism is what makes free will palatable, even attractive.

You cannot use logic to prove that affirmative action is wrong, that abortion is wrong, etc. They are wrong solely on the grounds that they are choices you would never make. There is no further justification, it would seem.

If you choose or would choose abortion, affirmative action, and so on, then they are morally acceptable choices for you. I firmly believe that your choices create who you are.

For instance, I can say that more than anything, I want to find a cure for cancer, for that is very important to me. I would be lying of course, because I have never given a cent to cancer research. In fact, I've spent more money on sporting events than on humanitarian aid or charity, so my actions clearly show that I value sports more than I value finding a cure for cancer, charity or humanitarian aid.

To say that progressive taxes promote the "overall social good" is absurd, because it doesn't exist. We have a society of individuals, and their rights should be respected.

Ryan