“What’s Wrong with the Political Left?” Article Contents:
Introduction
What is the Left & Right?
A Word about Fascism
A Word about the Word “Liberal”
Choose the Right
God Has Established the Constitution
The Principles of the Constitution
Collectivism – The Threat to the Inspired Constitutional Principles
On the Political Neutrality of the Church
Latter-day Saints and Political Leanings
The Conflict is NOT about Parties, But Principles
A Corrupt Tree Bringeth Forth Evil Fruit

What is Really Wrong with the Left?
I. The Political Left Does Not Believe In Freedom
I-1. Hooray for Satan’s Plan
I-2. Prosperous Person = Bad Guy?
I-3. Political Planning of the Economy and Society Negates Freedom
II. The Political Left Does Not Believe In Equal Rights
II-1. What Does “Equality” Mean to You?
III. The Political Left Does Not Believe In Absolutes, But In Relativities
III-1. I Guess the Revelations Aren’t That True
III-2. It’s Not Stealing When the Government Does It
III-3. It’s Okay to Take from Some but Not Others
III-4. More Concern for Intentions than Principles
III-5. Immigration and National Sovereignty
IV. The Political Left believes That Their Intellect is Superior to the Revelations of God
IV-1. Left Wing Cognitive Dissonance
IV-2. If At First You Don’t Succeed, Try, Try, Again
IV-3. The Oh-So-Infinite Wisdom of the Planners
IV-4. News Flash: Government is the Problem, Not the Answer
IV-5. Confidence in Government, But Not Individuals
IV-6. The Solution to Pollution
IV-7. Trusting in the Arm of Left Wing Flesh
V. Those of the Political Left are Very Often Intellectually Dishonest
V-1. Emotion-Based Thinking Rather Than Factually-Based
V-2. The Sacred Cow of Political Correctness
V-3. Killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg
V-4. Incapable of Meeting Right Wing Arguments Head-On
V-5. The Left’s Accusations against the Right Are Not Accurate
V-6. Using Distortion to Misrepresent
V-7. If You Don’t Like History, Change It
V-8. (Sigh) Pulling the Race Card…Incessantly
V-9. Interested in the Symptoms but Not the Cause
V-10. What’s in a Label?
V-11. Mockery: The Left Wing Tactic of First Resort
V-12. For the Little Guy (Or So They Say…)
V-13. Losing the Battle of Ideas? Make It about Republicans vs. Democrats
V-14. How Do You Like My New Look?
VI. Those of the Political Left Are Very Often Morally Corrupt
VI-1. Helping the Devil’s Work
VI-2. The Inherent Immorality of a Collectivist Economy
VI-3. You Got What We Want, So We’re Gonna Take It
VI-4. Being Generous with Other People’s Money
VI-5. They Talk the Giving Talk but Don’t Walk the Walk
VI-6. Moral Hypocrisy
VI-7. Snooty Saviors of Mankind
VI-8. Lack of Independence and Personal Responsibility
VI-9. War and the Political Left
VI-10. The Death Toll of Socialism
Conclusion

 

 

What’s Wrong with the Political Left?
By Loyal to the Word

 

         The political left is noted for advocating causes such as big government, planned economies, higher taxes, forceful redistribution of wealth, welfare dependency, gun control, homosexuality, abortion, population control, feminism – these and many other things that are against the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the inspired Constitution of the United States. In discussions with those of the political left, it is standard for them to distract from the issue, distort the truth, ignore facts, and name call in order to win the day. These are the symptoms that surface from such people who are politically left wing. But why is this so? What is it about the thinking of those who are on the political left that leads them to believe and support the things that they do? What are the underlying, root reasons for believing such things, and behaving as they do? What’s wrong with the political left? This article will seek to find the answers.

 

What is the Left & Right?

 

         Much is said about the “left” and “right” with respect to politics. What does it all mean? The “left” and “right” are actually labels for the different views about the role of government in society. This “left and right” paradigm derived from the way members of the French National Assembly sat in their legislative hall shortly preceding the time of the French Revolution (circa 1789). The two contentious factions that gathered there found it expedient to sit separately because of the hostility between them. The members of the “First Estate,” who were nobles, sat in the right wing of the assembly hall; the members of the “Third Estate,” who were revolutionaries, were in the left wing. Thus those on the right were wishing to conserve the status quo, and those on the left were liberals wishing to change the status quo to allow for more freedom. This is the origin of the popular modern conception of the political spectrum, although today it is basically reversed with respect to freedom and government control.

         Therefore, the popular notion today is that conservatives are on the right wing of the political spectrum, and liberals, socialists, and communists are on the left. But the political spectrum as it appears today is nonsensical and confusing. To avoid this confusion, the reader must realize that the entire political spectrum of “left” and “right” can be reduced to this simple test: Does the person prefer large or small government? Those who are today considered to be on the left prefer large government, and include Modern American Liberals, socialists, communists, and fascists (yes, fascists belong on the left – more discussion on this to follow). Also further to the left of conservatism are so-called neo-conservatives, or conservatives in name who actually prefer expansion of government and intervention in the economy. The left stands for big government, planning the economy and people’s lives in general, redistribution of wealth to special favored groups, and government control. While there are several political philosophies on the left and they disagree amongst each other, they all share those basic collectivist principles at their foundation. On the right of the political spectrum are so-called “conservatives.” The right stands for small government, the enumerated powers of the Constitution, freedom, free enterprise, and unalienable rights for all.

         As we examine the revised political spectrum below, note that it is a scale of total government versus freedom, and the further to the left on this scale, the more oppressive government control; the further to the right, the more God-ordained freedom. Note that government and freedom have an inverse relationship: the greater amount of government, the less freedom; the more freedom, the less government control there must be. The political left and right are not just different opinions about government issues, they are radically different orientations about reality. The left and the right view reality differently. This article will examine what is wrong with the left’s view of reality.

 

A Word about Fascism

 

         We are told over and over again by the media and also academia that fascism is a rightwing ideology, and they associate it with extreme conservatism. This myth, however, is entirely untrue. What will no doubt surprise many readers is the fact that fascism, the hateful philosophy of the Nazis and others, is actually another form of socialism, and is therefore one of the philosophies of the left. Like any popular movement, there are many variations and shades of socialism, and many systems that compromise with the principles of socialism to varying degrees. Communism, for instance, is nearly synonymous with socialism. As Ezra Taft Benson observed correctly, “For communism is just another form of socialism, as is fascism” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Stand Up For Freedom,” 1966, emphasis added). Ezra Taft Benson also said, “It is true that communism is on the extreme left, but Nazism and fascism are so closely allied.... They are all forms of Socialism” (Ezra Taft Benson, “A Race Against Time,” BYU Speeches of the Year, 1963). The First Presidency confirmed this truth in a letter to the U.S. Treasury when they warned, “We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from the underlying spirit common to Naziism, fascism, and communism, namely, the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort” (Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, Letter from the First Presidency to the U.S. Treasury, Sept. 30, 1941, emphasis added).

         The fact that fascism is a form of socialism is readily seen when one considers that it truthfully has nothing to do with conservatism, but has astonishing similarities with communism. Both fascism and communism are characterized by militaristic one-party rule, a police state of total government control, government usurpation over the economy, the destruction of normal families, death camps, a class or group of people targeted as scapegoats, and propaganda. The fact that fascism is a form of socialism becomes even more obvious when one considers that the proper name for the Nazi party was The National Socialist German Worker’s Party. And in fact, even Adolf Hitler as late as 1941 admitted publicly that, “basically National Socialism [i.e. Naziism] and Marxism are the same” (as quoted in F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, The Definitive Edition, p. 81 in footnote). Another example from history is the fact that Mussolini, the fascist Italian dictator and ally to Hitler, was a known ardent socialist before his rise to power (Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 31-36).

         Those on the left, particularly liberals, like to malign anyone whom they deem to be far right as “fascist.” However, those that do this misunderstand the ideology of fascism, for it is much more closely related to their own liberal ideas, and is in fact a leftwing collectivist ideology. Those on the right stand for freedom, unalienable rights, and limited government, the very things that fascism, liberalism, communism, and socialism are opposed to.

 

 

 

Left: Adolf Hitler, a fascist, and Joseph Stalin, a communist. Communism and fascism in actuality are both variations of socialism.

 

A Word about the Word “Liberal”

 

         A point of clarification is necessary on the term “liberal.” Originally, the word “liberal” as applied politically had reference to one who believed in a free market, limited government, and freedom unfettered by excessive government control (the word being derived from the Latin “liber,” meaning free). Therefore, the mode of thinking on the right ought rightly to be considered liberalism, and this was originally the case. For instance, the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be liberals. Unfortunately, the left has since hijacked that desirable term and now it has come to mean the control by the state which the left represents. In order to avoid confusion, we begrudgingly accept the label of “conservative” to describe the principles of classical liberalism. In an imperfect sense, the word “conservative” fits the principles of freedom which are on the right, if we consider that we are trying to conserve the principles of classical liberalism which have since been discarded by government and society. As a result, the term for true liberalism is now referred to as classical liberalism. Therefore, whenever the word “conservative” is used in this article, it will be used to describe the principles of classical liberalism. Whenever the word “liberal” will be used in this article, it will be referring to Modern American Liberalism, the leftwing ideology which has close associations with socialism.

 

 

Choose the Right

 

         There is a well-known Latter-day Saint hymn entitled, “Choose the Right.” The song is about making correct moral choices. While most of the time we consider this to apply to simply keeping the basic commandments – don’t lie, cheat, or steal – it is by no means a stretch of its meaning to include in this to choose the political right. That is because found on the political right are the correct principles regarding government and politics. These principles found on the right are unmistakably moral, while those which are opposed to it are undeniably immoral. It is a choice between moral right and immoral wrong (or, shall we say, moral right and immoral left).

         How can this author be so bold about this issue? Is this not an incredibly presumptuous claim, to say that a particular view of politics is the only correct moral choice? The simple reason that this author can be so bold about such an assertion is that God himself has given us instruction on this matter, and the conclusions of this author are reached from following this revealed guidance.

 

 

God Has Established the Constitution

 

         What are the principles which God has revealed to mankind regarding the proper way of structuring government? The scriptures assure us that God “suffered [the United States Constitution] to be established, and [that it] should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles” (D&C 101:77). The Lord also said that He “established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101:80). The Lord also said, “And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me” (D&C 98:5, emphasis added). Therefore, this inspired document should be highly regarded by every Latter-day Saint, no matter what country they may hail from. Not only that, but since the document is tantamount to a revelation from heaven regarding proper government, the principles and contents of the Constitution should be of considerable interest to all Latter-day Saints.

         The Prophet Joseph Smith declared, “the Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 147). President J. Reuben Clark declared of the Constitution: “The Constitution of the United States is a great and treasured part of my religion....The overturning, or the material changing, or the distortion of any fundamental principle of our constitutional government would thus do violence to my religion.... the constitutional ‘principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before’ the Lord….[The Constitution] is His plan for the government of free men” (President J. Reuben Clark, Stand Fast by Our Constitution, p. 7, 172).

 

 

 

 

The Constitution and its principles are inspired and endorsed by the Lord Jesus Christ. 

 

The Principles of the Constitution

 

         So far the reader has discovered that the Constitution of the United States is an inspired document, established by God himself for the freedom of all people, and that it contains “just and holy principles” revealed from heaven (see D&C 98:5-8; 101:77-80). So then what are the “just and holy principles” of the Constitution? The fundamental principles upon which the Constitution is based are as follows:

  • Unalienable Rights – All people have the same inherent rights to life, liberty, property, privacy, and freedom of religion and opinion. The government has no ability or authority to infringe on the rights of any citizen, but instead exists to secure these rights of the people. The only way that a person’s rights may be denied by government is if they have violated the rights of another.
  • Authority to Govern Comes from the People – The people and their property first existed before the formation of government in this world. Therefore, the people and their property are first and foremost preeminent over government, and government is simply a mechanism to protect the unalienable rights of the people. It follows from this that government does not have any inherent rights, powers, or authority except that which the people have delegated to it for the protection of their rights.
  • Limited Government – Rather than allowing government all authority, there are strict and just limits placed on the government’s powers by the people, for the protection of the people’s freedom. The powers that are delegated by the people to the government to exercise are few and carefully enumerated within the Constitution.
  • Separation of Powers – Throughout the ages of the world, the king of a nation has served as the law-maker, executor, and supreme judge of the nation. This has led to a long train of abuses of government. In order to preserve freedom, the Founding Fathers separated these powers of government, making the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government separate and independent of each other.
  • Decentralization of Authority – Freedom is not found in centralizing the powers and authority of government into a single body. A survey of history confirms the truth of this, as all oppressive regimes consisted of a strong, centralized governing authority. The Founders knew this, and so constructed the Constitution to make for a small federal government with few abilities, and deliberately distribute governmental authority among separate levels (federal, state, municipal), efficiently allocating responsibilities to those levels of government most suited to handling them.
  • Checks and Balances – Found throughout the Constitution are many checks and balances on the authority of governmental offices. This was done deliberately to avoid too much power being wielded by any one man, department, or agency.
  • Free Enterprise – Because the government has no authority to meddle unduly in people’s affairs, they are free to conduct their business in the atmosphere of a free market economy, a system of free enterprise capitalism. Improvement through competition and honest labour are the cornerstones of successful capitalism, making it the most moral economic system ever implemented by mankind. It has also been the most successful by far of any economic system, bringing prosperity and a raised standard of living for the masses. In fact, no other economic system has been even remotely close to the success of free market capitalism in raising the standard of living for all people. Even the poor are best served in a free market system. The role of government in a free market economy is to protect people against fraud and be an arbitrator in the courts of law.

         It is, of course, axiomatic that a member of the Church must treasure and support the Constitution if they are to be true and faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And if they are to treasure and support the Constitution, then they must believe in and uphold its fundamental principles which have just been listed, such as unalienable rights, limited government, free market economics, etc. We cannot reject these “just and holy principles” (D&C 101:77) which have been “established” by Jesus Christ (D&C 101:80) and yet be true to our faith.

         These fundamentals of the Constitution are vital to freedom. Unfortunately, these principles have not been not been properly followed and have been steadily deteriorating, most notably beginning within the twentieth century. The cause of the deterioration of the just and holy principles of the Constitution has been the ideological enemy of its principles – collectivism.

 

 

Collectivism – The Threat to the Inspired Constitutional Principles

 

         The underlying philosophy of the Constitution is called individualism. It is the philosophy wherein the rights of the individual are supreme and the government exists merely to protect the rights of the individual against violence, theft, fraud, or other malevolent acts. The people existed before the government, and so the government – as a later creation – cannot claim to supersede the rights which have always existed inherently for each individual. It can only legitimately act as a mechanism to preserve the rights of the people. Individualism is the philosophy of freedom.

         The philosophy which is opposed to individualism is called collectivism. This is the philosophy which maintains that a group or collection of people must take precedence over the interests of individuals, hence the name “collectivism.” In practice this means that whatever the people in power, the political planners, decide is the group of special interest, all rights of any other individuals may be superseded or totally ignored in order to meet the goals for the governing group. In collectivism, the government is not limited to certain spheres of power, but can act in whatever capacity the ruling power wants it to. Collectivist ideologies include all of the ideologies on the left – socialism, communism, fascism, and to a very large extent, modern American liberalism. Under communism, the group of special interest was the proletariat or poorer working class. Therefore, the property rights of the bourgeoisie or wealthier people were totally disregarded as they were pillaged to provide means for the redistribution of wealth. Collectivism is totally destructive to human freedom as it sweeps aside the people’s unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property in order to meet the political planners’ sociopolitical goals. Collectivism is the philosophy of tyranny.

         It is important to note here quickly that the United Order is NOT a form of collectivism. The Church has been very clear about this. Although it consisted of redistribution of wealth, it was entered into voluntarily, without force, respecting the inherent rights to property belonging to any who wished to participate in the order. Also, all property under the United Order was and is to be privately owned and controlled, not communally owned or controlled. The United Order is actually based upon the just and holy principles of the Constitution. For more information about the differences between the United Order and collectivism, see J. Reuben Clark, Conference Report, Oct. 1942, p. 54-59 & Oct. 1943, p. 11; Marion G. Romney, “Socialism and the United Order,” BYU Speeches of the Year, Mar. 1, 1966; and Ezra Taft Benson, “A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion,” BYU Speeches of the Year, Apr. 12, 1977.

 

 

On the Political Neutrality of the Church

 

         Some would seek to find fault with this author’s message by pointing out that the Church is politically neutral, and so it is. Harold B. Lee said, “When election draws near we hear members who say, ‘Why doesn't the Church tell us how to vote?’ I can’t think of anything that would bring about more wholesale apostasy than if we would assume to do that” (Harold B. Lee, “Be Ye Not Deceived,” BYU Speeches, May 1965). The Church will never tell you which party or candidate to vote for, neither will it ever sponsor any politicians or parties. With ideologies, however, it is different. The Church speaks out against false ideologies regularly as a matter of course. This is important.

         It should be obvious that there is a distinction between the political neutrality of the Church (i.e. not telling us how to vote), and notions of ideological neutrality (i.e. indifference toward various teachings). Certainly the Church is not ideologically neutral, and this affects the political leanings that a member of the Church can be justified in taking. For instance, could a person be a staunch Nazi and yet at the same time be a faithful member of the Church? Every reasonable person would say absolutely not. Clearly there are limits to political adherence with reference to the Church. And indeed, Elder Quentin L. Cook warned that “the most universal subjugation in our day, as it has been throughout history, is ideology or political beliefs that are inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ” (Quentin L. Cook, “Lamentations of Jeremiah: Beware of Bondage,” General Conference, Oct. 2013).

         The First Presidency has given us guidance on what ideologies are acceptable, and which are unacceptable. Regarding collectivist ideologies such as communism and socialism (and indeed fascism as well), the First Presidency has warned, “Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies” (Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, Messages of the First Presidency, 6:151). The First Presidency also declared:

 

“The Church does not interfere, and has no intention of trying to interfere, with the fullest and freest exercise of the political franchise of its members, under and within our Constitution....But Communism is not a political party nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government, and it would be necessary to destroy our government before Communism could be set up in the United States. ...no loyal American citizen and no faithful Church member can be a Communist. We call upon all Church members completely to eschew Communism.”
(Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, Messages of the First Presidency, 6:17-18).  

        

         Therefore the Church’s political neutrality should not be interpreted to mean that any political ideology is perfectly acceptable. We have been counseled by no less than the authority of the First Presidency against supporting collectivist ideologies. Therefore, in order to be “true to their faith,” Latter-day Saints should heed their warnings against the corrupt ideologies of collectivism and instead adhere to the tenets of the Constitution.

 

Latter-day Saints and Political Leanings

 

         The only consistent conclusion for a member of the Church is to ascribe to conservative political values. As this article will show, nearly all of the values generally held by the political left are directly contrary to, and fight against, the truth of the Gospel. Of course, most members of the Church who love their religion have already come to this obvious conclusion. In a report dated July 24, 2009, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a major research organization, has determined that, “Mormons stand out from the general population and other major religious traditions for their conservatism on both cultural and political issues.”[1] The study indicated that Mormons are more politically conservative than any other major religious group, including Evangelical Christians (ibid).

         According to the Pew Forum Study, 60% of Mormons identify themselves as “conservative,” while only 27% consider themselves as “moderate,” and only a mere 10% identify themselves as “liberal.” (ibid). Furthermore, there is a scientifically established correlation between Church attendance and political conservatism, that is, the more regular the person attends Church, the more likely that the Mormon identified themselves as conservative (ibid). Not only that, but the more educated the Mormon in the study, the more likely they were to consider themselves as politically conservative (ibid). And so the study clearly shows that the more educated, active members of the Church are much more likely to be conservative, while uneducated and inactive members of the Church are the ones that are more likely to identify themselves as liberals. Could all of these facts be coincidence? Could it be that the majority of active and educated Mormons are simply off track or do not understand what their Church is trying to teach them? Of course not, especially when considering the doctrine of the Gospel as it is presented in this article.

         The conclusion of this study, and of the discussion of this entire article, is extremely obvious. We simply cannot escape the conclusion that Mormonism is almost entirely in line with political conservatism, and that if a Mormon is politically liberal, there are only two possible explanations: 1) They do not understand the Gospel, or 2) They do not like what the Gospel teaches.

 

 

The Conflict is NOT about Parties, But Principles

 

         It is necessary to reinforce that this battle of ideology is not a Republicans vs. Democrats issue. It is a limited government vs. oppressive government issue. Both of the parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, are to blame for taking America away from its sacred Constitutional principles, further down the road of oppressive government. We cannot afford to get caught up and distracted in party politics, or bicker over which General Authorities might have belonged to which party along the course of time. Party affiliations do not tell the whole story, especially since party platforms change so much over the years; we cannot assume that a General Authority who was a participant of one of the political parties 50 or more years ago would approve of the party as it exists today.

         What we must consider is: what have we heard being taught from the Brethren of the Church? Which General Authority has ever advocated socialism, or praised welfare statism, especially in a public venue? Which prophet, seer, or revelator has ever spoken against the Constitution as an archaic, out-of-date document that needs fundamental changes? The prophets have not taught us such things because such things are not true.

         All the discussion about political parties that some like to make is really quite a hindrance. We must only be first and foremost concerned with ideology, with the principles which God has revealed, not the petty issue of party affiliations. As President J. Reuben Clark declared in reference to our duty under the circumstances: “Today, our duty transcends party allegiance; our duty today is allegiance to the Constitution as it was given to us by the Lord” (J. Reuben Clark, “The United Order vs. Communism,” Conference Report, Oct. 1942). Release yourself from the yoke of party loyalty, and instead stand firm on the foundation of true principles. That is the only way we will stay on the clear path. It is useless and counterproductive to argue from a Republicans vs. Democrats standpoint.

 

The point is not which political party has done what. Both are blameworthy. The point is which ideological principles are true and which are false.

Despite the fact that General Authorities may have been partial to various political parties over the years, they have been uniform in praising the inspired Constitution. Political parties are inconsequential; the Constitution is the standard.

 

 

A Corrupt Tree Bringeth Forth Evil Fruit

 

         The left tries to portray itself as a bastion of goodness in society, the great hope for the common man against the harsh ravages of big business capitalism. But this is precisely what makes the left so incredibly hypocritical. The “Progressive Movement” of the early twentieth century, which is the foundation of Modern American Liberalism, has its roots in big business interests partnering with government bureaucracy for its own advantage. Congressman Ron Paul made this clear in one of his books:

 

                                    “After 1896 and 1900, then, America entered a progressive and predominantly Republican era. 
                                    Compulsory cartelization in the name of ‘progressivism’ began to invade every aspect of American 
                                    economic life. The railroads had begun the parade with the formation of the ICC in the 1880s, but 
                                    now field after field was being centralized and cartelized in the name of ‘efficiency,’
                                    ‘stability,’ ‘progress,’ and the general welfare.... In particular, various big business groups, 
                                    led by the J.P. Morgan interests, often gathered in the National Civic Federation and other think
                                    tanks and pressure organizations, saw that the voluntary cartels and the industrial merger
                                    movements of the late 1890s had failed to achieve monopoly prices in industry. Therefore, they
                                    decided to turn to governments, state and federal, to curb the winds of competition and to
                                    establish forms of compulsory cartels, in the name, of course, of ‘curbing big business monopoly’
                                    and advancing the general welfare.”
                                    (Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman as quoted in G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, 2010,
                                    p. 434-435).

 

 

         This is the beginnings of Modern American Liberalism – big business seeking government favor, not an altruistic concern for the common man. Modern American Liberalism was conceived in corruption. The scriptures record the Son of God saying, “Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matt. 7:16-18, emphasis added). Since Modern American Liberalism had its genesis in corruption, we can only expect corruption and ill effects to result from it.

 

 

 

The roots of Modern American Liberalism, the most popular left wing ideology today, are in the unholy merging of big business interests with government coercion. To the right is a 1911 cartoon drawn by Robert Minor, a Bolshevik Communist. It features Karl Marx with a book Socialismsymbolizing his ideas, being enthusiastically greeted by (left to right) Morgan partner George Perkins, J.P. Morgan, the progressive President Teddy Roosevelt, John Ryan of National City Bank, John D. Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie.

 

 

What is Really Wrong with the Left?

 

         We will now discuss the root cause of the political left’s position on issues. They are as follows:

  • They do not believe in freedom. They believe that individuals cannot be trusted to plan out their own lives, and that freedom is too reckless to allow society to operate with it. Nobel Prize-winning free market economist Milton Friedman wrote:

                                   “A major source of objection to a free market economy is precisely that it gives people what they 
                                   want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments
                                   against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself”
                                   (Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, as quoted in Kevin D. Williamson, The Politically 
                                   Incorrect Guide to Socialism
, p. 49).

  • They do not believe in equal rights. Individual’s rights are not considered sacrosanct to the political left. The rights of individuals are only important to those on the left when it suits their purposes.
  • They do not believe in absolutes, but in relativities. A wrong can be right if they deem the cause to be worthy. They believe that the end will justify the means – that stealing from one may be right if it helps whoever they consider worthy of help.
  • They believe that their intellect is superior to the revelations of God. They believe that they have better answers for society’s problems. Therefore, they do not trust in the principles which God has given us for our prosperity (i.e. in the Constitution), but they instead consider their own intellect superior and more helpful for society. Despite strong evidence to the contrary, they truly believe that the answer to the problems that plague society are found in some form of government programs – that government, and not private individuals acting on their own initiative, is the answer; that their careful planning can replace and outperform the natural market forces.
  • They are very often intellectually dishonest. While often people who are leftwing simply go along with the crowd without much introspection, others attempt to rationalize their beliefs with logical argument. However, logic and leftwing ideology are inherently opposed to each other, and so those who claim to harmonize the two are either intellectually or morally dishonest, or stupid.
  • They are very often morally corrupt. The disintegration of wholesome values in society can be clearly traced to the left wing of the political spectrum pushing its views upon the world through media, academia, and entertainment. This is how such perverse abominations as homosexuality and abortion have been accepted, embraced, and celebrated within our society. The political left, and with very few exceptions, those who advocate it, are morally corrupt.

         It is clear that all of these issues are manifestations of the overarching problem of pride. It is profitable, however, to subdivide the problems of the leftwing psyche into the foregoing categories. We will now discuss each of these main points in further detail, having categorized each of the above root causes, with examples listed underneath to illustrate the manifestations of these:

 

 

I. The Political Left Does Not Believe In Freedom

 

I-1. Hooray for Satan’s Plan

         The political left are advocates for Satan’s plan of coercion. Before the foundation of the earth was laid, in the Grand Council, Satan laid a plan before the Father and his spirit children to use force to make people do right (see Moses 4:1-4). The plan was popular, so much so that one third of those attending chose to subscribe to it. However, Our Heavenly Father, in his infinite wisdom, saw the folly in such a course, and rejected Lucifer’s plan outright. The Father ordained that all people should have the sacred freedom of choice, and not act by coercion from a higher authority. The fight for freedom in heaven was so contentious that Lucifer and his third had to be cast out of heaven. Today, they continue their fight against freedom by whispering their false doctrine of coercion and control to the weak-minded and impure in heart. They seek to tear down the freedoms afforded by the inspired Constitution and set up in its place oppressive government. The total dictatorship of countries like North Korea is the exact type of rule that Satan was seeking in the spirit world. And Satan accomplishes his plans for control upon the earth inasmuch as societies relinquish their God-ordained freedom for the government control of the political left.

 

Satan was cast out of heaven partly for seeking to undermine the principle of freedom of action.

 

 

I-2. Prosperous Person = Bad Guy?

         The political left portrays itself as guardians of the unfortunate. In order to maintain this perception, they constantly demonize those who have become financially successful. Their thoughts are: If you are successful, then you are part of the malicious, oppressive rich class that seeks to prey on the lower classes. They demonize prosperity and success (even if the successful person was once poor). They see it as something to be attacked and pillaged. Underneath this tendency is the evil presumption that they are entitled to sharing in the prosperity of those who worked so successfully. Why? Because the rich ought to share. But just because it would be a nice thing for a rich person to share his good fortune, does not make him legally obligated to do so. To require such a thing of the prosperous is to destroy freedom.

         In reality, most of those who have become propserous do not have a mindset or desire to deliberately oppress others. They simply want to live comfortably, because they (usually) have worked hard for that privilege. Prosperity, to those who have worked hard for it, has been an ideal to work towards, not an evil dragon to be slain. And in a free society, people must be free to prosper or fail, share or hoard as their genius, business habits, circumstances, and work ethic permits them. Of course, even a purely selfish capitalist with no interest in charitable giving does good for society simply by growing his business, because this creates jobs and products or services for the public. Prosperity is not the bad guy.

 

 

I-3. Political Planning of the Economy and Society Negates Freedom

         The political left always incorporates some manner of planning for society and the economy. It is against their ideology to allow people the freedom to plan their own lives, or to do what they will with their own profits. Such political planners, who believe they have a plan or formula to improve society, or build it in their own image, want to run society. For instance, the Keynesians of Modern American Liberalism wish to prop up failing businesses in times of trouble. The communists wish to eliminate profiteering altogether. Fascists wish to maintain and secure profit for the select group at the expense of others. In all of these plans, the principles of freedom are necessarily disregarded to meet the goals of the governing group. It is impossible to stifle the free market by initiating economic planning of some kind or another, and yet retain basic human freedoms in their fullness. The plans of the left necessarily mean less freedom for the individual.

 

 

II. The Political Left Does Not Believe In Equal Rights

 

II-1. What Does “Equality” Mean to You?

         What does “equality” mean to you, the reader? It may come as a surprise to hear that for all the doublespeak that the left makes about “equality,” those who are on the left either have no concept of or no respect for equal rights. That is because to those on the left, “equality” does not mean that every person should be treated the same before the law, but instead that special groups should be established and given special privileges above others to remedy perceived wrongs. It’s not about equal rights for them, it’s about equal things. For example, liberals believe that the government should show special consideration to the poor, and use other people’s money to bolster their lifestyles. The person whose money was taken from him by the government has been robbed of his property, and the poor who received his money are a specially-created group which receives favors that others in society do not. The person who was robbed by his government has fewer rights than the poor man.

         It is clear that to the left, “equality” means instead economic equality, with individuals being in more or less the same economic class. Because this necessitates the ignoring of certain citizens’ property rights, such an “equality” necessarily means that, aside from material possessions, there can be no equality at all. The left’s idea of “equality” is nothing but a buzzword, a mantra that means exactly the opposite of what it says.

         However, the Lord has given us this sacred instruction: “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor” (Lev. 19:15; see also JST Matt. 7:1-2). In other words, all people, rich or poor, should be considered as equal before the law in their rights.

 

 

III. The Political Left Does Not Believe In Absolutes, But In Relativities

 

III-1. I Guess the Revelations Aren’t That True

         Unlike those on the right, left wing members of the Church find themselves in the situation of doubting the wisdom and veracity of the revelations of God. That is because the revelations of God endorse the Constitution of the United States – a document to which they are necessarily opposed. So then, they must conclude, the revelations mustn’t be that true, because they in their infinite wisdom have concluded differently. Therefore, they believe the revelations only in part, relatively to their own political leanings, and certainly not absolutely as though they were consciously and deliberately revealed from heaven.

 

 

III-2. It’s Not Stealing When the Government Does It

         Redistribution of wealth, defined here as the forceful confiscation of wealth from one group of people to another for the purpose of increasing the wealth of the other group, is nothing more than stealing. This is always and inevitably true. It is an absolute. Recall that the government is supposed to protect the rights of property, for every individual – no matter whether they are rich or poor.

         All would agree that for a person to walk in and steal his neighbor’s money would be wrong. Yet when the government confiscates the money of an unwilling individual to redistribute it into the pocket of others, somehow collectivists on the left believe that this is moral. However, there is no other legitimate way to look at government redistribution of wealth than blatant thievery and stealing – the very opposite of what government is supposed to do for the people. We cannot switch our stance against stealing to approval of stealing when it applies to government power.

 

Right: The Constitution is meant to protect the sacred property rights of individuals from redistribution by the government. 

 

 

III-3. It’s Okay to Take from Some but Not Others

         The mindset of the political left is also morally relative when it comes to the government stealing the property of one class of citizens but not another. Liberals, for instance, will claim that it is just to take (or steal) from those who are wealthy (to give to others), but that it is not just to take (steal) from those who have little. The moral problem here is: isn’t it wrong to steal from anyone? Aren’t rich people entitled to their inherent, unalienable right to property just as much as any poor man? Liberals would say no, because they believe that stealing can be just and that rights don’t matter as much.

 

 

III-4. More Concern for Intentions than Principles

         Good intentions, and not rock-solid principles, seem to be all that matter to the left. Those on the left rarely regard an action as inherently wrong on principle. Instead, they want to take a look at what special group the action may have helped, before they condemn it. For example, the redistribution of wealth (which is the forceful confiscation of wealth from one group for the purpose of increasing the wealth of another group) is inherently wrong – it doesn’t matter who the money was taken from, or who it was going to – it’s all stealing and denial of property rights. But those on the left might consider government subsidy to oil companies bad, but welfare programs for the poor good, even though they both work on the same fundamental principle of government theft of private property. But this sort of logic, of course, is absurd. Would robbing the bank be justified if the robber gave his stolen money to a group of Nuns or an orphanage? Of course not, because the ultimate end, while noble, was still put into place and enacted through the dishonest means of stealing, and has hurt other people along the way.

 

 

Good intentions do not necessarily lead to good ends, nor do they make a wrong action right.

III-5. Immigration and National Sovereignty

         The left wants to provide amnesty to illegal immigrants, who are criminals who chose to blatantly disobey the immigration laws. It accomplishes this chiefly through a political correctness campaign, shaping the perception of the people as to what is proper to say about the situation. The Constitution justly delegates to Congress the power to make laws respecting immigration (naturalization). Those who consciously disregard these laws, even if they are burdensome and could use reform, are criminals. This is an absolute; there is no other reasonable way to view them. Some sort of penalty or punishment is warranted. However, when it comes to these circumstances of illegal immigrants, the moral relativism of the left wing kicks in, and all of the sudden instead of being criminals taking advantage, they are a poor, down-trodden people. 

         Of course, there is nothing wrong with immigrants or immigration on principle. America, after all, is a nation of immigrants. And there would be nothing wrong at all with completely free immigration – that is, any people who simply arrive in the country may live and work and make it their home – and this is what the immigration policy of America used to be up through the early 20th century. But this cannot be done if the government of the nation also provides so-called entitlement programs and welfare. The left cannot have it both ways – they cannot continue to have free immigration and yet provide entitlements to those who will not pay taxes, because this will bankrupt a nation. While the left would vainly try to have its cake and eat it too, of course the sensible thing to do would be to follow the original forumula for immigration in America: free immigration, without the benefit of entitlement programs. And of course, such a reversal of policy must be done by lawful act of Congress, not by skirting around the issue and ingoring the problem.

         Much of the left’s attempts to open the borders up however, is done with the desire to slowly abolish the borders of nations, and work towards a world union, rather than separate sovereign nations. Why is the left so concerned about helping to erode national sovereignty? Many on the left want to eliminate national boundaries as much as possible precisely to reach this aim, this instituting of world government. But lovers of freedom know that government is administered most justly at the more local levels. All oppressive governments throughout history have had a centralization of authority and power at the highest echelon of government.

 

 

IV. The Political Left believes That Their Intellect is Superior to the Revelations of God

 

IV-1. Left Wing Cognitive Dissonance  

         The left wing pushes for abortion, homosexuality, feminism, population control, a breakdown of the family, and the destruction of the Constitution. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints preaches expressly against those very things. Those who are members of the Church and also politically left wing find themselves in a very difficult contradiction – their religion teaches them one thing, but their political leanings are pulling them another way. Unfortunately for them, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other” (Matt. 6:24), and the master they have chosen to serve is their left wing political ideology. We know this because they cannot invoke the scriptures or the teachings of the prophets to support their ideology, but they must instead conclude that such things are mistaken, flawed, or wrong – a dangerous line to walk; if they had taken the scriptures and the prophets for their guide, they would have come up with entirely different political conclusions. Instead they are trapped in this great contradiction, constantly seeking to justify their dissension.

 

 

IV-2. If At First You Don’t Succeed, Try, Try, Again

         Throughout time, governments have tried and failed to duplicate or improve on the success of individual action with various government programs. There is no better example than the twentieth century. Take for instance, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies, which rather than ending the depression, simply prolonged it for years, whereas other examples of nonintervention in the economy had shown much faster recovery. And now in the financial crisis of 2008, the Bush and Obama governments responded essentially the same way as Roosevelt.

         Those on the left think their own special brand of government program can succeed where countless predecessors before have failed. They think their government programs, which are demonstrated failures, can succeed over and above the free market (which has proven success). One example is healthcare in the United States. For many years, the healthcare industry has probably been the most highly regulated industry in the country. And yet, the system has been in terrible shape, broken and expensive. Yet, the liberals and socialists still insisted that the reason healthcare is expensive is due to the free market (yes, the free market, in the most regulated industry in the country). Their solution? More regulation!

 

 

IV-3. The Oh-So-Infinite Wisdom of the Planners

         The political left is characterized by those who would like to plan society to mold to a certain image. Hitler wanted an Aryan race. The communists wanted the triumph of the proletariat. Modern liberals want welfare programs where the wealthier are forced to pay the way of others. But can such a complex thing as society really be planned so well? Or is it better to allow for more freedom, and release the government from this imposed responsibility? Clearly, the latter is the case.

         What is a major driving force of this motivation and urge to plan society? The political left think that they and their sociopolitical planners are smarter than the average person. That’s why they want to plan everything. They think they are capable and deserving of that kind of power and control. They also, implicitly by their intellectual stance, think that they are smarter than God, his prophets, and his revelation.

         This fallacious view was observed by the economist and political philosopher, Frederic Bastiat, when he wrote, “But think of the difference between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his substances, between the agriculturist and his seed! The Socialist thinks, in all sincerity, that there is the same difference between himself and mankind” (Frederic Bastiat, The Bastiat Collection, p. 68).

 

 

IV-4. News Flash: Government is the Problem, Not the Answer

         One of the great hallmarks of the political left is that they have no confidence in individuals, yet they have supreme confidence in the ability of government to fix society’s problems. This is quite comical, considering the government’s track record for fixing anything – especially when contrasted against the efficiency and success of the free market for solving issues. Government intervention is ineffective, if not detrimental in its effects, worsening the problem or creating new ones. In response to the reason why he abandoned Marxism, economist Thomas Sowell remarked, “I took a job in the government. I went to the University of Chicago as a Marxist. After a year of studying under Milton Friedman I was still a Marxist. But one summer of working in the government was enough to start me turning around…. I realized that the government was nowhere close to being capable of doing what people on the left wanted government to do. And then, in fact, we’d be lucky if they didn’t make things worse” (Thomas Sowell: In the Right Direction, Fox News program, 2005). 

Above: Free Market Economist Thomas Sowell abandoned Marxism after witnessing firsthand the utter inefficiency and incapability of government. 

         Thomas Sowell’s mentor, Milton Friedman, the great Nobel Prize-winning economist, likewise spoke persuasively against excessive government, indicating that it was indeed the source of many problems in society, rather than the solution. He said: 

 

 

 

Above: Free Market Economist Milton Friedman observed that government rarely solves problems effectively, but more often is the source of society's great problems.

 

“Let’s list our major social problems and ask where they come from….
“What produced the current wave of homelessness around the country that is a disgrace and a scandal? Much of it was produced by government action. Rent control has contributed, though that has been even more damaging in other ways, and so has the governmental decision to empty mental facilities and turn people out on the streets. So have public housing programs, which have destroyed far more housing units than they have built and have let many public housing units become breeding grounds for crime and viciousness.
“There has been an extraordinary collapse of family values, a growing number of teenage pregnancies, illegitimate births, and one-parent families. Government alone is not responsible for those major social problems; however, government has contributed to them in major degree. One of the Manhattan Institute’s most productive achievements was its sponsorship of Charles Murray’s study of these phenomena. His book, Losing Ground, provides persuasive evidence that these social problems owe a great deal to mistaken and misdirected governmental policies….
“…Government has played an increasingly large role in medical care. For decades, total spending on medical care was about 3 to 5 percent of national income. It is now 12 or 13 percent, and the acceleration of spending dates from the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Some of you may have seen an article published in that excellent journal of opinion, the Wall Street Journal, in which I cited figures on hospital cost per patient day, adjusted for inflation. The cost was 26 times as high in 1989 as it had been in 1946; personnel per hospital bed was seven times as high, while the number of hospital beds had been cut in half. Great advances in medical care have certainly occurred, but they did so before 1965 as well as after. Those seven times as many people per hospital bed are clearly not people who are attending to patients….”
(Milton Friedman, Wriston Lecture, 1991).

 

 

         Despite these things, those on the political left truly believe that the force of government, and not individual initiative, holds the key to fixing all of society’s problems. This is one of the great trademarks of the left – the great conceit of the idea that the plans produced from their intellect can surpass the efficiency of the God-ordained free market. President Ronald Reagan summed up the truth of the matter succinctly:

 

 

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?”
(President Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1981).

 

Right: President Ronald Reagan correctly observed that government was the cause of society’s greatest problems, not their solution.

 

 

IV-5. Confidence in Government, But Not Individuals

         One thing that is very apparent about those on the left is that they have very little confidence in individuals, the human spirit, and the ability of free men to guide their lives. Instead, they have incredible (although historically unfounded) confidence in government. Frederic Bastiat summed this circumstance up when he wrote, “Their faith is in the legislator, not in mankind; ours is in mankind, not in the legislator” (Frederic Bastiat, The Bastiat Collection, p. 13). Since they do not believe in the power of the individual or the principle of freedom, it is their belief and desire that government should force people into doing whatever it is that they feel society may require, whether it is giving to the poor or anything else. However, as history has proven, individuals acting in their own self-interest find ingenious ways to accomplish every imaginable task, whereas government has historically always been bogged down in bureaucracy, inefficiency, and corruption. Where is faith better placed?

 

 

IV-6. The Solution to Pollution

         The left believes that its government planning and policies are sufficient to fix problems, and more efficient than the market. However, nothing is better than the innovation of free enterprise to solve the problems of society. What about the scourge of pollution? All would agree that pollution is a problem, but what is its best solution?  Economist Milton Friedman expressed the following:

 

                                          “Private enterprise, they will say, is responsible for polluting the air, for polluting the water,
                                          for destroying the earth. I suggest to them that they compare the pollution in countries that
                                          have really been run by the government, such as Poland or the Soviet Union or Rumania, with the
                                          pollution in this country. The difference is not because our government has been more efficient
                                          in avoiding pollution. It is because private enterprise finds that it is not profitable to
                                          pollute; it is much more profitable to avoid pollution. There is a real function for government
                                          in respect of pollution: to set conditions in which the costs are borne by the parties
                                          responsible. However, actual government policy has not been either efficient or effective. An
                                          example is the Clean Air Bill recently passed, which will do little to clean the air, but much to
                                          clean the pockets of industry.”
                                          (Milton Friedman, Wriston Lecture, 1991).

 

 

IV-7. Trusting in the Arm of Left Wing Flesh

         Those on the left who understand and (presumably) believe the scriptures and their principles of truth, have a serious pride issue. That is because they sincerely believe that their left wing ideology is superior to the principles taught within the scriptures. Therefore, left wingers in the Church and Christianity in general are “trust[ing] in the arm of flesh” (D&C 1:19), because they adhere to man-made philosophies more tenaciously than God’s revealed truth. The scriptures say that, “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool” (Prov. 28:26).

 

 

V. Those of the Political Left are Very Often Intellectually Dishonest

 

V-1. Emotion-Based Thinking Rather Than Factually-Based

         The left doesn’t care about facts or reality, only the promise of their utopian schemes. Their arguments instead are emotion-based. That is why they resort to mockery so quickly, in lieu of rational discussion, and why they invoke class warfare. Virtually all, if not entirely all, of the left’s arguments are emotionally based, and not factually based. (The reader should also note well that incorporating a fact into an argument is not the same as basing the argument on fact).

         An example of this is their desire to have high corporate taxes, ‘to fight for the little guy – and besides, if they have more, then they should be required to give it to others!’ But let’s examine what real, actual effect high corporate taxes have and whether they are of any actual benefit. First of all, the vast majority of corporations are not the huge Exxons and General Electrics of the world, but they are mostly mom-and-pop operations, just trying to get by, and maybe create a few jobs along the way. These would be severely punished in the liberal paradigm. Also, even for the big corporations, if we tax them ruthlessly, what effect does that have in real life, ignoring the emotion of what acts of charity we think rich corporations ought to engage in? The effect of over-taxing large companies is that they have less money at their disposal to expand their operations and hire more workers, creating jobs for the little guy! The ideas of Modern Liberals are completely subversive to their goals. 

         Let us take another example of a clear issue in which the facts contradict the left wing thinking. Consider the effects of price controls on products and rent controls on rental properties. The government deems the price of a commodity or rental property to be too high, and so imposes a freeze on the price to make it more affordable for all. All over liberals, socialists, and ignorant poor people rejoice. Unfortunately, in a very short time, these price controls cause shortages of the commodity and shortages of rental spaces. Since the commodity or rental space is no longer profitable in the market, entrepreneurs stop providing it and move on to other things. Also, since the price is low enough, many, many more people are seeking the said commodity or rental unit. And those units that do remain do not have to remain competitive and so lose their quality and become cheap or rundown. Hence, a grave shortage occurs, quality diminishes, and no one is satisfied. This situation has been played out many times in economies around the world (see Thomas Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies, p. 4-5). Had the government simply allowed the market to operate, it would have adjusted appropriately, new entrepreneurs would have entered the market, and the goods would have abounded and quality increased, while prices moved to a reasonable point. However, the temptation of government to “do something” about financial troubles, the naïve perception that such a technique would work, and the value in public relations for trying to make things easier on the poor, ultimately prove too strong.

         The same is true for minimum wage laws. Though well intentioned (they want to help out the low income earners!), they invariably cause unemployment. Instituting a minimum wage means that those whose work is valued below the minimum cannot work at all. This creates unemployment in the economy, especially among young people or immigrants from poorer neighborhoods, who could have used the on-the-job training to work their way up. But the lure of being seen as ‘helping out low income earners’ is just too much for politicians to resist, and so the emotional side of the argument, the argument of the left, wins.

         We can also see the left’s tendency to use emotion rather than logical argument in its insistence to stamp out sweatshops in developing countries. They see the existence of such low-cost manufacturing facilities as abusive exploitation by Western capitalists. Who could not feel sorry for the workers in sweatshops, working diligently to earn far less than the average American? What they conveniently ignore, however, is the fact that all industrialized nations have had sweatshops at some point in their history. Sweatshops are simply part of the growing pains of becoming a successful, industrialized nation. What happens when left wingers, with all the good intentions in the world, seek to reverse the “abuses” of capitalism and shut down sweatshops in these nations? The real effect is that they send the factory workers back to their farms where they have an even lower standard of living, with work that is even more dangerous, and remuneration that is far below what they could have made in the capitalists’ factories. Also, progress for the nation is stifled, as it becomes hindered from rising out of its primitive state. Future generations that could have expected modern technological convenience and comfortable living, are condemned to the drudgery of continuing in their third world existence.

         We could use further examples such as the disastrous and self-defeating effects of government welfare or foreign aid to prove the point, but it has been firmly established already. Now the reader can see that going by the facts, the policies of the left stink. But emotionally, they have great appeal, hence the astonishing success of the left.

 

 

V-2. The Sacred Cow of Political Correctness

         There is another intellectually dishonest tactic of the left that must receive attention: this is the whole concept of “political correctness.” Political correctness is the idea of restricting speech to ensure that the least amount of groups will be “offended.” This careful tactic of political correctness is really actually meant to change public perception in the left’s favor. It is the propaganda of the modern left, with the same aim as Soviet or Nazi propaganda, which is to influence the masses of people to think only a certain way. It denigrates religion and labels religious discussion as “offensive.” Political correctness is used by the left as a tool, as a weapon of social engineering. Political correctness perpetrated by the left is the new censorship; rather than making certain views illegal, they accomplish their goals of silencing opposition and stamping out the principles of freedom through propaganda and aggressive socialization, making them socially unacceptable. The left claims to stand for free speech, but what they really stand for is political correctness – seeing that only the “correct” opinions are being expressed.

 

Political correctness is subtle propaganda, producing social change; it is also a tool for censorship and the left’s attempt to effectively silence opposing views without actually having to make them illegal.

         It is highly significant that in General Conference of the Church, Elder Dallin H. Oaks specifically identified political correctness as a failure to follow Christ (see Dallin H. Oaks, “Followers of Christ,” Conference Report, Apr. 2013) and as a false god that many serve in preference to the true God (see Dallin H. Oaks, “No Other Gods,” Conference Report, Oct. 2013).

 

 

V-3. Killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg

         The political left is constantly trying to tear down the idea of capitalism, all the while not appreciating that they stand on the shoulders of capitalism; that all the comforts enjoyed today which liberals and socialists want to distribute, would not have existed without capitalism, private property, and private innovation. Collectivists take this abundance for granted as a fact of life, as though it has fallen from the sky like manna from heaven, rather than being created through prudent investment and production. But it is only because of capitalism that we have this great abundance that the left wants to redistribute. Therefore the mindset of the left can only be properly interpreted as inconsistent, unappreciative, grossly childish, inconsiderate, impractical, and parasitic. They are killing the goose (free market capitalism) that has laid for them the golden egg (widespread prosperity).

 

The left vainly seeks to destroy capitalism yet also retain the abundance and raised standard of living it has provided for all.

 

 

V-4. Incapable of Meeting Right Wing Arguments Head-On

         One thing that becomes apparent when observing those on the left argue those from the right, is that those on the left cannot meet arguments against their ideology head-on. Instead, they evade, use tu quoque responses, or malign their adversary through mockery or sophistry. That’s because left wing ideology is fundamentally indefensible. It absolutely cannot withstand being compared fairly against right wing ideology.

         For instance, free market capitalism is responsible for making the ragtag nation of the United States the most prosperous nation on earth: “By the end of the nineteenth century, [the Founders’] formula was beginning to give Americans the highest standard of living in the world. With less than 6 percent of the earth’s population, they were producing more than half of just about everything. This was all made possible because Americans had a Constitution which allowed them to be the first nation to practice the free-market principles set forth in a famous book by Adam Smith entitled The Wealth of Nations” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, p. 203). What can the left say to this proven fact of history? They of course cannot disprove it, so they would instead of try to distract us from it. They may counter by focusing on whatever societal problems may have occurred during the heyday of capitalism (societal problems which their government programs could allegedly solve).

         The fact that the left cannot meet the arguments of the right squarely is largely due to the circumstances noted above, wherein their arguments are not based in fact but are entirely emotional in nature. Thus, when inspected, they fall apart under scrutiny. So instead of bearing such scrutiny fairly, the left will attack, marginalize, stigmatize, and attach misleading and deceptive labels to any who disagree. Watching a few minutes of Bill Maher on television is sufficient to see this pattern.

 

 

V-5. The Left’s Accusations against the Right Are Not Accurate

         The left’s charges against the right are almost always not accurate, but again serve to malign and distract from the true issues. One of the claims of the left is that capitalism is greed. However, capitalists are not innately “greedy.” Greed is a human problem that affects people of all political persuasions. There is nothing inherently greedy within the system of capitalism itself. There are many generous capitalists; they just believe that people ought to be able to choose what they will do with their hard earned income, whether they want to give it away or do whatever. Is that really too much to ask?

         Actually, capitalists are not more greedy than those on the left. According to research, people with conservative values are much more likely to give to charity than those of the left! The best indicators of charitable giving are “strong families, church attendance, earning one’s own income (as opposed to receiving welfare), and the belief that individuals – not government – offer the best solution to social problems” (Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, 2007, description on back cover).

         Another example of the left falsely accusing the right, to make the  ideology of the right appear immoral, is the following Straw Man argument: conservatives want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Actually, those on the right who are true conservatives would like to see all people prosper, and that is why they are such strong advocates of the free market, which cannot favor any person, but is completely blind and impartial, bringing success to those who know how to satisfy the demands of the people. The only way such a phenomenon in which the rich get richer while the poor can only get poorer could be accomplished is through government intervention in the economy, making it that way. Government intervention is the only way to actually prevent the poor from getting rich or the rich from becoming poor. Otherwise, any person with the requisite work ethic and ingenuity, under the free market system, can make a fantastic financial success of themselves, no matter what circumstances they were born into. If we are finding an ever-widening gap between rich and poor, it is because there is an ever-encroaching government facilitating that trend.

Only government intervention can ensure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

         Other examples could be cited: the left’s hypocritical insistence and ugly charge that those on the right are racist (see the heading below “V-8. Pulling the Race Card…Incessantly”), that they don’t care about the environment, or equal rights. Once again the facts fall on the side of the political right. All the left can do is perpetuate negative stereotypes about those on the right. The left must bend the truth because otherwise they would have no ammunition. And so a concern for preserving the sacred freedom and property rights of individuals is often spun by the left as “greed.”

 

 

V-6. Using Distortion to Misrepresent  

         It is common for those on the left to distort, bend and twist the arguments of those on the right, in order to misrepresent them and make them appear less credible. This author was once having a conversation with a liberal in which this author objected to the idea of socialized post-secondary education – the notion that the others ought to pay for the educational decisions of those who go to school. Immediately the liberal countered with, “You don’t believe that all people should have the opportunity to have higher education?” Of course this author believes all people should have the opportunity to receive a university education, and they can, if they work hard, take out loans, make use of scholarship gifts, etc. This author just doesn’t believe that it is others’ obligation to pay for the educational decisions of others. It is not a call for taking education away from the less fortunate. The two positions are entirely different.

         This sort of distortion of the opposing view is nevertheless typical of those on the left. They are very prone to misrepresenting the views of the right, because:1) It is easier to win in an argument with someone if you can make them look crazy or lacking in credibility, 2) Deflecting the true issue means not having to confront it, alleviating the left winger from having to explain their ideology rationally, and 3) By propping up a Straw Man, a caricature of the right, it makes the left winger feel better about disagreeing with the common sense of the right.

         Another example of a conversation with the same liberal goes like this: This author was explaining his opposition to an income tax on Constitutional grounds to the liberal. Immediately, this author was accused of being an anarchist, who does not believe in government or taxes at all. This author’s position, which had merit, was misrepresented as if out of habit.

         As a further example, when the Tea Party movement of conservatives tired of big government surfaced across the nation, the left wing media tried desperately to paint this group of down-to-earth people as fanatics and racists. But their protests were peaceful, their concerns genuine, and their ideals inspired by the Constitution. On the other hand, later when the Occupy Wall Street socialist movement flared up across the country, the left wing media tried to portray them as normal, law-abiding protestors, even while there were lawlessness, public defecations, sexual assaults, and violence rampant at every Occupy center.

         The reader may also recall that back in 2009, when there was the Fort Hood, Texas terrorist shooting, in which an American soldier named Major Nidal Hasan, who was a Muslim, gunned down his fellow soldiers in the name of Allah, the right wing media reported on this terrorist attack immediately. As for the left wing, they were sluggish to pick up on the story, and when they finally did, would not refer to it as a terrorist attack but instead simply as a “shooting,” in order to avoid offending any Muslims. Political correctness was responsible for keeping Hasan from being discharged or investigated prior to the shooting, even though there was striking evidence that he was a threat. But such level-headed investigation of a Muslim might have seemed discriminatory for the army. A similar situation has occurred on Sept. 11, 2012, when Muslims stormed the American embassies in Libya and Egypt on the anniversary of 9-11, and Americans were murdered. The leftwing media and politicians used their influence to try to make the American people think that it was merely coincidence and not terrorism.

 

 

V-7. If You Don’t Like History, Change It

         It is true that both those on the left and the right accuse each other of the same thing – distorting history to suit their agenda. However, in the case of the left the charge is definitely true. Those on the left have been very careful in trying to interpret history for the general public in a way that would vindicate their failed ideologies. A few examples include:

  • The lie that capitalism had a crippling effect upon the poor, forcing them to work in factories with harsh conditions, and hence the rise of the merciful Progressive Movement (the forerunner to Modern American Liberalism). The reason people worked in those factories was because it was more profitable for them to do that than it was to do other lines of work, like the conventional farm job, etc. Capitalism does not force people to work in any place, or in any condition – it is the worker who chooses to do so, because he prefers it to other existing alternatives. The rise of Progressivism (the forerunner of Modern American Liberalism) was actually the unholy alliance of big business with government, to restrict competition in the marketplace, under the guise of being in the best interests of the public.
  • The lie that the Great Depression was caused by a failure of capitalism. This untruth has been oft-repeated far too much. Actually, the Great Depression was the natural consequence of government policy. The credit expansion of the roaring 20’s by the Federal Reserve created the inevitable coming Depression. With each credit boom, created by the Federal Reserve, must follow a bust as a natural consequence. It was government and the Federal Reserve, not capitalism, that caused the market crash of the economy which began the Great Depression.
  • The lie that Herbert Hoover, who was President of the United States at the commencement of the Great Depression, was a free market disciple and that his inaction was what caused the great despair of the Great Depression. Actually, Hoover was an interventionist (like a modern-day liberal might be today), and he acted very quickly in response to the market crash of 1929, with many government measures. Franklin D. Roosevelt, who came afterward, only intensified what Hoover started.
  • The lie that Franklin D. Roosevelt saved America from the Great Depression with his government programs. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s failed big government response to the Great Depression served only to prolong the Depression and make it worse. Yet the left hails his government programs and innovations as the thing that saved the economy from total collapse. Prior to this, however, the free market response to recessions/depressions fixed the problem much faster and less painfully. The recession of 1920-1921 is an example. This recession, which seemed just as dire as the 1929 crash in its initial stages, was fixed by the free market forces within the span of only nine months. Before the government could even mobilize to do anything, the unfettered market had fixed the recession.

 

 

 

The left has lied to America about its history to vindicate their failed policies. A prominent example of this is the falsehood they perpetuate that leftwing President Franklin D. Roosevelt saved America during the Great Depression. Actually, his policies made the Depression worse, and prolonged it. 

  • The lie that Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” welfare state innovations had a positive effect upon the nation and reduced poverty. Actually, they made an already prosperous nation poorer and less inclined to work.
    (For more details about these little-known historical facts, see Thomas E. Woods, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History).

 

V-8. (Sigh) Pulling the Race Card…Incessantly

         There are probably few labels that have the discrediting effect and induce derision as well as the label of “racist.” Often the political left seeks to discredit those on the right by attempting to portray them as racists, or by twisting what they say to make it appear as a racist comment (see above heading, “V-6. Using Distortion to Misrepresent”). It seems that to win an argument, all those on the left need to do, and what they often do, is call their opponent a racist. End of argument. Welfare is destructive to society? Well, you’re a racist who hates blacks.

         Some on the left have even claimed that conservatives speak in a secret racist “code” language. For example, when they’re talking about poverty in America, they’re really deriding black people. Such secret code language must be really secret, because somebody will have to clue the conservatives into this code that they had no idea they were using. This type of garbage actually receives airtime on liberal/mainstream media news outlets.

         Accusing their opponents of racism is one of the most underhanded methods of the political left. Those on the left use this method often because they know that calling someone a racist is one of the quickest, most effective ways to discredit someone, and that it requires little evidence. Once the suggestion is made that so-and-so is a racist, they are guilty until proven innocent. That is why they always seem to resort to this method; they are unable to win an argument without deferring to tactics like this. It illustrates probably better than anything how desperate and devoid of intellectual honesty the left is.

         If you take an honest look at the ideology of the right, with unalienable rights for all mankind, it becomes very apparent that it is the most non-racist, egalitarian philosophy in the world. All people, no matter their color or beliefs, should be treated the same by their government: without special favors. Leftwing ideology, on the other hand, separates people into classes and groups, sometimes based on race, other times based on economic or other factors. It then seeks to create an inequality before government, having government set up one group as favored and others as forced servants to the favored group. An example of this is the redistribution of wealth to Native Indians from other citizens in Canada. Is not such a government program a blatantly unequal, and utterly immoral manifestation of left wing racism?

 

 

V-9. Interested in the Symptoms but Not the Cause

         Everyone knows that to effectively treat a disease, it will not do to focus on treating its symptoms, as though that will make the problem go away. At best, such a course would only temporarily mask the real problem – the disease itself. It is the same with the political left. They are interested in treating society’s symptoms only: for example, take the problem of poverty. The left’s solution to poverty is welfare programs. In other words, they are only interested in helping people after they have developed symptoms of a problem, like when their income lowers to a certain level. As economist Thomas Sowell stated, “They [liberals and the left] really are for helping people who are disadvantaged, as they put it. Whereas I think conservatives want to stop people from being disadvantaged. In other words, the liberals want to help the poor while they’re poor, but really the biggest benefit is stop them from being poor. And that they have very little interest in” (“Thomas Sowell: In the Right Direction,” Fox News program, 2005).

         And so like the doctor who treats only the symptoms, the left’s “solutions” (government welfare programs) don’t make the problem go away. In fact, government welfare increases poverty and tends to perpetuate it for generations by destroying the incentive for work (See Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980).

         The way to treat the disease of poverty is to allow people to exist in a free economy, where their own personal work ethic can determine their success. Independence and self-sufficiency then become the rule, and these attributes lead to a productive life. There will always be those who are unwilling to work (and they deserve to be poor – D&C 42:42), but for those that would choose otherwise, their merits are best rewarded in a free market. The government dole will never replace or lead to the productive measures that are brought about by work ethic and ingenuity.

         Another astonishing inconsistency of the left and their lack of desire to treat the root causes of society’s problems is their utter disinterest in what really causes inflation. Inflation, which results in rising costs of goods and services, is a malicious thief, especially to those who are poor or living on fixed incomes. The left say they are concerned about the poor who cannot keep up with rising costs and inflation, but they do not wish to address the cause of inflation – the Central Bank printing money to pay for the government’s expenditures.

 

 

V-10. What’s in a Label?

         One of the most effective methods which the liberals and socialists use to discredit the right is to apply deceitful labels to those who disagree with them. The left applies deceptive labels to the right in order to discredit and marginalize their opponents. Rather than meet their arguments on their own merit, they apply these labels. This is one of the most blatantly underhanded strategies of the liberal/socialist agenda – to marginalize those who disagree with their views by unjustly making them appear to the average person to be uneducated, extreme, fanatical, or crazy.

         Examples of these are easy to find. Just talk to a liberal that you know. One of these major examples has already been discussed above (see heading: “V-8. (Sigh) Pulling the Race Card…Incessantly”). There are many more. If you disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, then you’re a homophobe (i.e. you have an irrational fear of homosexuals). If you stand up for the family then you’re a “bigot.” If you disagree with the global warming/climate change agenda, then you’re a “global warming denier” or a “climate change denier,” which is a play on the term “holocaust denier.” If you believe in the traditional values of the Constitution that made America great, then you’re an ignorant, uneducated “redneck.”

         It seems that the left cannot operate without applying such dishonest labels. That is because the best way for them to influence people is not to demonstrate the success of their policies – their policies are failures. But the best way for them to influence people is to shape the way the average person thinks about things.

 

 

V-11. Mockery: The Left Wing Tactic of First Resort  

         Ever wonder why leftwing television programs that are comical and political, such as Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show,” the “Colbert Report,” and Bill Maher’s “Politically Incorrect,” are so prevalent? Why is the left so heavy into comedian acts? It is because mockery is the leftwing weapon of first resort. Since there is no merit to their ideas they cannot demonstrate their views in a successful light. And so they denigrate their opponents instead. This is so effective (and really basically all they have), that it is usually their first thing to try, right off the blocks. Instead of using concrete argument they must marginalize through mockery, to make it seem that their opponents are silly and have no credibility. The Lord has said of those who reject his principles, “Fools mock, but they shall mourn” (Ether 12:26).

 

 

V-12. For the Little Guy (Or So They Say…)

         The left must always portray itself as the underdog pitted against some oppressor (which becomes the scapegoat for society’s problems). To liberals and socialists, the oppressive group is the rich. To the Nazis it was the Jews. To Feminists it is men. To “Black Panthers” and the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), it is white people. This creates a false view of reality and shifts attention away from the real blame for society’s problems, as well as their real solutions. It also demonizes normal people or groups who are not collectively guilty of what they are accused of. False ideologies are to blame, not different groups of people.

         Another way in which the left tries to take a self-righteous approach to solving the problems of mankind is to restrict capitalism and leave millions in poverty across the world, such as in places like Africa, so as not to disturb their “way of life.” But the impoverished living in primitive cultures in Africa and across the world are people too! They are not some living museum for those of the Western world to come and gawk at, or for liberal intellectuals to keep in a policy-imposed display case like some kind of artifact. They are people, with wishes and desires for progress, the same as any other once-primitive people that have since become modernized (which would include all people – all people everywhere once lived in a primitive state). Wouldn’t they also like electricity and the comfortable living of modern conveniences? The truth is that most of them would prefer those things, but often the policies put in place prevent them from obtaining them. The left tries to make it appear as though they are champions of the disadvantaged. In reality, the left would only suffer such groups to have what they, the left, think they should have.

 

 

V-13. Losing the Battle of Ideas? Make It about Republicans vs. Democrats

         The left is always wanting to make arguments about political parties rather than principles. This allows them to sidestep an examination of their beliefs, and, instead of having to attack the proven success of conservative/classical liberal ideals, the left can instead set up a Straw Man of their opponent by identifying them simply as “Republican.” All of the sudden, a conservative is not a person with excellent, proven ideas – they are a Republican. And the Republican Party has done this, that, and the other, so why should we listen to a conservative? The flimsy and easily discredited image of the Republican Party (a so-called “conservative” party, although it does not adhere well to the values of conservatism/classical liberalism), is then projected upon all who would call themselves conservative. It is a great distraction from the real issues, the principles and ideology at stake. “What, free market capitalism is the best economic system known to man? You Republicans are only trying to help big business,” they might say.

 

 

V-14. How Do You Like My New Look?

         The left must continually reinvent themselves and put on a fresh face. That is because people become wise to them when they see the utter failure of their ideas. For instance, they have gone from being known as “progressives” to hijacking the well-thought-of term “liberal.” They are now gravitating back to the progressive term because the term liberal is no longer held in high esteem by the general public. Another example of this is the transformation of Marxism to environmentalism. While being conscious of the environment is a good thing, the radical environmental movement are at their core an anti-capitalist Marxist movement. The global warming/climate change agenda is simply socialism under the guise of do-gooder environmentalism. It is socialism rebranded; a new face on collectivism. This makes the ideology much more acceptable in the mainstream, by dressing up a tired old ideology into fancy new clothes.

 

 

VI. Those of the Political Left Are Very Often Morally Corrupt

 

VI-1. Helping the Devil’s Work

         It simply cannot be denied from a Gospel perspective that the political left are helping the Devil’s work move forward upon the earth. The left are agents of moral decay, advocating abominations that undermine the family – such as homosexuality, feminism, abortion, population control – all the while denigrating and deriding those who would stand up for the family. They achieve this end chiefly through the use of their “political correctness” social engineering weapon/tool discussed earlier.

         Consider, as a special case in point, the horrid abomination of abortion so prevalent in society and so vigorously defended by the left. Their basic arguments used to justify the practice will be evaluated as follows:

  1. “It’s not a person.” This is absolute falsehood. This whole argument of a baby fetus not being a person revolves around the fact that it has not yet developed all of its human parts in the same way that a fully-functioning adult has. But it is not a heartbeat, or circulatory system, or any sum of parts that qualifies a human being as such. If that were the case, then a fully grown adult who lost a limb or had a lung or a kidney removed would logically be less of a human being as a result, and would also therefore have less rights as a human being. But this is obviously not the case. What makes a person a human being is the fact that they have their own genome (set of 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother), and that they are viable, alive, and in the case of children, growing. This of course is exactly the status of a fetus from the point of conception. Elder Russell M. Nelson taught, “In the biological sciences, it is known that life begins when two germ cells unite to become one cell [i.e. at conception], bringing together twenty-three chromosomes from both the father and from the mother…. The onset of life is not a debatable issue, but a fact of science” (Russell M. Nelson, Conference Report, April 1985).
  2. “A woman has the right to choose what to do with her body.” This may be so, but the baby fetus within her is not her body – it is someone else’s body, with their very own spirit and their very own unique gene code. The fact that the baby fetus is dependent on its mother is irrelevant – even children that have been born are still completely dependent. Some retarded children will remain that way their entire lives. Should we execute them as well? 
     

         It is ludicrous to think that anyone ought to actually have the legal “choice” to kill another human being, particularly their own children, if they decide that their presence is inconvenient for them. There is no rational basis for legalized abortion whatsoever. The government is supposed to protect the unalienable right to life, which means that abortion for convenience should not be allowed by government (U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment. See also D&C 134:2).

 

 

 

The left upholds abominable acts, not the least of which is the abortion of innocent children. Shall God hold such people guiltless for their consent to this great slaughter of innocents? Can they escape the damnation of hell?

 

 

VI-2. The Inherent Immorality of a Collectivist Economy

         Free market capitalism is the most moral economic system ever devised, preserving freedom for the individual to make decisions, rather than government bureaucracies making their decisions for them. Central to the system of capitalism is human agency. Agency, as we know, is essential in the plan of salvation. A war in Heaven was fought over it, and Lucifer, who advocated centralized control, was rejected by the Father, who valued freedom of action. It follows therefore, that an economic system which holds sacred the freedom of human choice and action is ordained of God, and that any system which seeks to replace such freedom is the way of Satan.

         Just like Satan, the left seeks to undermine the freedom of the individual, in order to accomplish their aims for society. The left wants to take money and property by force from others without earning it. Its ideology is patronizing because it assumes that the individuals could not put their money towards good and wise uses, at least not to the extent which the leftwing government officials could. It sweeps aside the individuals’ rights to property, and instead sets up an autocrat above them with the power to give and to take away. This is an entirely corrupt and immoral basis for a philosophy.

         Conservatism and capitalism, on the other hand, seeks to improve goods and services through competition, with capitalists bettering their products or services to make them more appealing to buy. If the products or services are worth it, then people will voluntarily part with their money for it. If they are not, the people freely retain their money. It is an ennobling process. Progress and innovation through competition, which drives honest advancement and betterment, with the people of everyday life as the final judge – this is the nature of capitalism, and it is an incredibly moral basis. Economist Ludwig von Mises observed this phenomenon and noted that the morality inherent in capitalism is absent in a state-planned economy:

 

“In the market, economic power is vested in the consumers. They ultimately determine, by their buying or abstention from buying, what should be produced, by whom and how, of what quality and in what quantity. The entrepreneurs, capitalists, and landowners who fail to satisfy in the best possible and cheapest way the most urgent of the not-yet-satisfied wishes of the consumers are forced to go out of business and forfeit their preferred position.
“In business offices and in laboratories, the keenest minds are busy fructifying the most complex achievements of scientific research for the production of ever-better implements and gadgets for people who have no inkling of the theories that make the fabrication of such things possible. The bigger an enterprise is, the more is it forced to adjust its production to the changing whims and fancies of the masses, its masters. The fundamental principle of capitalism is mass production to supply the masses. It is the patronage of the masses that make enterprises grow big. The common man is supreme in the market economy. He is the customer who ‘is always right.’
“…Under capitalism they are vying with one another in serving the masses of less gifted men. All their thoughts aim at perfecting the methods of supplying the consumers. Every year, every month, every week something unheard of before appears on the market and is soon made accessible to the many.
“…Under capitalism the customer is the man for whose patronage the suppliers are striving and to whom after the sale they say ‘thank you’ and ‘please come again.’ Under socialism the ‘comrade’ gets what ‘big brother’ deigns to give him and he is to be thankful for whatever he got.”
(Ludwig von Mises, Money, Method, and the Market Process, Ch. 14).

 

 

 

Eminent economist Ludwig von Mises observed that capitalism is a moral system that serves the interests of the masses, while collectivism serves the interests of a few.

 

 

VI-3. You Got What We Want, So We’re Gonna Take It

         As mentioned above, taking (or shall we just call it stealing) is the underlying fundamental behind all collectivist ideologies. This is the foundation of the left’s thinking: You’ve got what we want, so we’re just going to take it from you. The Nazis stole the property of innocent Jews who had prospered through their ingenuity. The communists stole the wealth of the bourgeoisie to redistribute to the proletariat workers who never really earned it. The liberals in America want to force those who earn a certain amount of money to pay into wasteful, bureaucratic government programs that give money to those who neither earned it nor appreciate it. This approval for stealing is fundamentally wicked and sinful to its core, not “compassionate.” True compassion would be voluntary giving, not forceful confiscation. Economist Thomas Sowell observed, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money” (Thomas Sowell, Barbarians Inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays).

         In contrast to this foundation of theft, the Constitution holds sacred the right to private property. Also, God has said, “Thou shalt not steal” (Ex. 20:15). The teachings of the Church are such that: “We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life” (D&C 134:2, emphasis added). The standards of God and the ideology of the left are completely at odds.

 

 

VI-4. Being Generous with Other People’s Money

         The left is often enamored with themselves, considering themselves to be incredibly noble, caring, and compassionate because they have decided that the unfortunate should receive financial aid. But not aid from them – no, no, no, my boy – aid from somebody else, like those greedy capitalists! This is the fundamental principle underlying their supposedly “charitable” wealth redistribution schemes, such as government welfare programs. Of course, it’s easy to be generous with other people’s money, and there is no nobility in this. This is not generosity at all, but is actually a manifestation of pettiness, theft, and greed.

 

 

VI-5. They Talk the Giving Talk but Don’t Walk the Walk

         Those on the left fault conservatives for not being charitable and compassionate. But according to statistical data, this is not true. As was already discussed above (see heading, “V-5. The Left’s Accusations against the Right Are Not Accurate”), people who are politically conservative give more generously. The best indicators of charitable giving are “strong families, church attendance, earning one’s own income (as opposed to receiving welfare), and the belief that individuals – not government – offer the best solution to social problems” (Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, 2007, description on back cover).

 

 

VI-6. Moral Hypocrisy

         It is so interesting that the left attempts to appear morally superior to those on the right. This manifests itself in their claims that they are “compassionate” while those on the right are not, and that they are sticking up for some disadvantaged group. Haven’t they forgotten about a few things? They claim moral superiority but at the same time they:

  1. try to eradicate human freedom, 
  2. steal private property through wealth redistribution,
  3. transgress the principles of justice with wealth transfer,
  4. consent to the slaughter of innocent children through abortion,
  5. are condescending towards individuals, treating them like children that cannot be not trusted to run their own lives.

 

         These are the moral superiors of society? Not a chance. A person on the right can still be compassionate and not call for force. In fact, voluntary giving is true compassion. The moral hypocrisy of the left is truly astonishing.

 

 

VI-7. Snooty Saviors of Mankind

         Those on the left often portray themselves as people who have a great concern for others – usually particular groups that they feel are deserving. But they sure are prideful in their approach to helping mankind. Those planners on the left consider themselves the masters among the human race, and all those pitiful masses need to conform to their plan so that everyone (or a majority or minority) can be better off. There is no respect in this for the individual and his freedoms. Who cares about freedom and unalienable rights – the leftists have a plan that will save the world. They portray themselves as champions of the disadvantaged yet they sit on their high perch, considering themselves to be the intellectual elite.

 

 

VI-8. Lack of Independence and Personal Responsibility

         The left does not seem to like individuals engaging in self-sufficiency, but instead believes that dependency on government is the better route for society. The problems with this approach are very simple to understand. Government welfare breeds dependency and erodes the divine sense of personal responsibility for one’s own life and actions. Instead of people seeing themselves as the ultimate source or their success or failure, they feel that they are instead helpless victims of circumstance, and that the state therefore owes them a living.

         Under the welfare state or the command economy, there is no sense of personal responsibility – someone else should be taking care of you instead. Yet the scriptures teach that man is responsible for his life. Recall the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30). Those who through their own industry improved upon what they were given were blessed for it. Those that did nothing with what they were given were cursed. The Lord’s law is: “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7), and “Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer” (D&C 42:42). But the principles of the welfare state transgress these sacred laws of God, and destroy man’s independence and personal responsibility. Along with this, common sense also goes out the window.

 

 

VI-9. War and the Political Left

         One thing that liberals denigrate conservatives for is that they are warmongers. While it is true that many so-called conservatives are gung ho when it comes to war with other nations, this is not rooted in the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, but is due to an insertion of neo-conservatism, a more left-leaning, big government ideology than true conservatism. In other words, warmongering is actually more characteristic of the left, not the right.

         Sound untrue? Consider for example the notorious communist and fascist war machines of the twentieth century. Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were very militaristic and aggressive towards neighboring nations. Today, communist North Korea is heavily military-minded.

         As for the American history of war in the 20th and 21st centuries, these have been initiated and perpetuated principally by those who are quite far left of the conservative/classical liberal ideology of the Founding Fathers. The man who plunged America needlessly into World War I was Woodrow Wilson, an ardent progressive. The man who presided over America when it went to war in World War II was Franklin D. Roosevelt, another staunch progressive. The man who greatly escalated America’s involvement into the bloody Viet Nam war was Lyndon B. Johnson, a very liberal/progressive president. George W. Bush, a neo-conservative who greatly increased the size of government (despite claiming to be a conservative), also plunged America into war. But his successor to the presidency, the very liberal Barack Obama, despite promises actually did little to alter the situation once in office.

         Remember that those “conservatives” who had led us into unnecessary war are actually “neo-conservatives,” i.e. pseudo-conservatives who do not hold to the principles of classical liberalism (i.e. true conservatism). The Founders, and classical liberals in general, were against needless wars that did not fit the strict definition of National Defense. “Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16), the scriptures say.

 

 

VI-10. The Death Toll of Socialism 

         Many people on the left are fixated on the “evils of capitalism,” and are therefore quite sympathetic to socialism and its aims, if not being socialist outright. The hypocrisy in this is that socialism is responsible for more wanton death and murder than any other ideology in the history of the world – this evil is the ideology that has the support of those on the left, or has garnered sympathy from Modern American Liberals. Socialism, including all its various forms (such as communism and fascism), is the greatest evil in the world. As Ezra Taft Benson taught, “Now we should all be opposed to socialistic-communism, for it is our mortal and spiritual enemy – the greatest evil in the world today” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Stand Up For Freedom,” Assembly Hall at Temple Square, Feb 11, 1966. Given to The Utah Forum for the American Idea). He has also taught, “After traveling in practically all of the free countries of the world and several times behind the Iron Curtain, I say that Marxism is the greatest evil in this world and the greatest threat to all we hold dear” (Ezra Taft Benson, Delivered to the International Freedoms Conference. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania. October 26, 1979).

         One needs only to look at the horrific death toll of socialism to see the truth of this fact – a death toll that does not include death from war, but from the government killing its own citizens. At a conservative estimate, the figures of death among communist regimes alone are:

 

USSR: 20 million deaths
China: 65 million deaths
Vietnam: 1 million deaths
North Korea: 2 million deaths
Cambodia: 2 million deaths
Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths
Latin America: 150,000 deaths
Africa: 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths
(Robert P. Murphy, Lessons for the Young Economist, p. 244). 

Socialism and its variations are responsible for more wanton death and murder than any other ideology in human history.

         These figures of course do not include the millions of unborn children slaughtered through abortion around the world, nor do they include the death toll of National Socialism (fascism).

 

 

Conclusion

 

         We have now delved into the fundamental problems with the thinking of those on the political left, and have diagnosed why they think the way that they do. To summarize, those on the left do not believe in freedom, unalienable equal rights, or absolutes with regard to correct principles. They also believe deep down that they are so much smarter than others, that they are keen enough to plan better outcomes than the natural productivity of free enterprise, and even wiser than the revelations of God himself. They are also very often intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt. These are the reasons for their behavior and stances on issues.

         It can be readily seen by the honest in heart that the political left is in great conflict with the revealed truth of the Gospel; it fights against the Gospel on nearly every principle. No doubt this is why the great majority of active, educated members of the Church identify themselves as conservative (recall the Pew Forum study). Members of the Church who adhere to the political left find themselves in a great contradiction – their religion is telling them one thing but their political preferences are pulling them another way. They cannot be true to both. No such conflict exists for conservatives in the Church; their political ideals match exceptionally well with the principles of the Gospel.

 

[1] http://pewforum.org/Christian/Mormon/A-Portrait-of-Mormons-in-the-US--Social-and-Political-Views.aspx on 06/24/10

 

Back

 
Make a Free Website with Yola.