Home > Critical Thinking, Culture & Media, Liberalism > Covering up Failure with a Capital “F”

Covering up Failure with a Capital “F”

Andrew Klavan may not be a name everyone knows, but he is rapidly establishing himself (at least for this blogger) as an eminent anti-idiotarian with his eloquent common sense approach to the issues of the day.  Here is an example in which he evaluates the worldview of the left and the fruit thereof.  Enjoy!


As the 9/11 massacre underscored the failure of the left’s multicultural worldview, so the current debt crisis highlights the failure of leftist redistributionism.

In fact, leftism has failed utterly. It has failed everywhere and it has never done anything else but fail. From the murderous, leftist tyrannies of the Soviet Union and China to the soft but nonetheless oppressive and stagnant socialism of a moribund Europe, the relativist, wealth-crushing, overweening state has revealed itself to be an engine of misery and collapse.

This is a disappointment to many. To those who feel they are entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor, to those who feel their good intentions can be brought to fruition by the government, and to those, most of all, who fancy themselves elite, who fancy themselves better able to make moral and economic decisions on your behalf from on high than you, the citizen, can do on your own — to all of these, the failure of leftism is a trauma so great it has yet to be accepted. Rather, in order to distract both their followers and their opponents — and maybe themselves — from the gathering facts on the ground, leftists routinely rely on three well-worn techniques: insults, stupid arguments and lies.

The insults we all know. Disagree with the left and you’re a racist, a sexist, an Islamophobe — whatever. What do such insults even mean, really? Let’s say you oppose Barack Obama — and let’s say you really are a racist — does that mean his share-the-wealth ideology works? Of course not. If you’re a sexist, does that make women less interested in babies or more interested in trucks? If you’re Islamophobic, does that change the odds that the man who murders you will be named Mohammad? We are what we are and the world is what it is regardless of our personal merits and failings. The insults — for the information of all you teabagging terrorists out there — are just the sound of the left indulging in base intimidation, hoping they can keep you from spreading the word that their philosophy has failed — failed always and everywhere.

As for the stupid arguments, they usually involve citing bad individual actions in order to obscure bad underlying principles. Thus when you note the disaster wrought on our economy by Obama’s governing philosophy, leftists counter that, well, George W. Bush spent too much money too. Yes, he did — because, in those moments, W. was operating under the same misguided redistributionist principles as Obama. It’s the principles that are wrong, no matter who holds them.

Likewise, when you point out that Islamism is an evil and oppressive idea, leftists counter that Americans have done many bad things as well. And yes, we have — all nations have — but the liberty we stand for is a good, just as shariah law is a bad, not for some people in some places but for everyone all over.

No group or philosophy is free of its madmen, villains, saints and clowns, but it matters, in the end, what you stand for. In fact, that’s what matters most — and the left stands for a philosophy that has failed.

Finally, the lies. For me, the worst of them are those that misrepresent the true nature of our disagreements — because these lies are intended to turn us against one another. No one, for instance, is arguing about whether the poor and aged should be cared for. We are arguing whether they should be cared for by a federal government that, by its very nature, is prone to power hunger and corruption. No one of good will disagrees about the immorality of institutional racism, but we are arguing about whether the past can be corrected by reverse racism now.

And we are not arguing about whether the United States is perfect. We are arguing whether our problems can be addressed within the framework of constitutional law, small government, unhindered markets, and the resultant liberty these provide.

To address our problems without crippling individual free will or confiscating private property (which amounts to the same thing) — this is the useful and noble enterprise that stands beyond the ruin of the moment. But before the left can join in that enterprise, it must first admit that its own enterprise has failed.

  1. 12 Aug 2011 at 1:14 PM


    I like your article and it well written with a lot of interesting theories. I do believe your last line however is the line in the sand. I do not believe for one moment that the left will ever admit that what they do and their policies have failed. I see and hear it constantly and it about drives me up the wall. I cannot for the life of me understand how someone can keep repeating that what they have done has worked while everything is crumbling around us. It has to be a state of intense and neurotic denial in the least.

    I put these people into several categories. There are those who are so steeped in their liberalism/progressive ideology that they cannot see the failure.

    Then there are those who want to keep doing the same thing over which has not worked which is the definition of insanity.

    The third category and the evil one which I believe is the one and the best reason why the progressives/commies/Marxists, whatever one wants to call them, is that this is no accident that we are failing, but that there exists a faction all throughout our government who wants to bring us down and they will not stop by any means to carry that through.

    So, in essence we are left with a completely corrupt system with no one we can trust because we don’t know who all the characters of destruction are. We know some of them and they are obvious but there are other hidden ones. To fix this situation Humpty Dumpty must come down completely and then the pieces have to be put back together with trusted individuals.

  2. 12 Aug 2011 at 2:22 PM

    Pepper, I do hope by “your article” you mean “your quoted article.” What you like is what Andrew Klavan wrote; I just pointed you to it by quoting the whole thing. I do that a lot as I don’t have a lot of time to actually write much these days. Hopefully at some time in the not too distant future I will be able to do so again. Thanks for stopping by again!

  3. 12 Aug 2011 at 5:50 PM

    Interface yes, I meant your “quoted article”. I’m not too swift today. Have a stomach virus. Not very pleasant.

    Well someday you’ll find the time to write again. It seems to be that way for a lot of people, a kind of off and on thing depending on what’s going on in one’s life.

    You are welcome. I like what you put up. 🙂

  4. 13 Aug 2011 at 6:04 AM

    I too, have to come to appreciate Klavan’s no nonsense rants over at PJTV.

    In this piece he treats with what I think of as “The Narrative” vs. “Reality”. Of course, his argument will be countered by the left as being too simplistic. This is the standard counter whenever someone interjects reality into the discussion.

    I wish I could remember the name of the individual who said recently; “Only politicians and lawyers find the constitution to be complicated.”

    Reality is inescapable, and it’s catching up fast!

  5. 15 Aug 2011 at 3:47 PM

    Yeah, Sarge, Reality has a way of doing that eventually!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: