Left's Authoritarian Slippery Slope

THE LEFT'S AUTHORITARIAN SLIPPERY-SLOPE

Many on the left have become quite intolerant

authored August-December 2016

by Les Govment

 
572 views

Educators and historians typically classify Nazism as being politically on the right, often labeling it "far right." That's no surprise, since most educators are on the political left. As for the politics of historians, I think it's safe to say it's likely that a sizable portion of historians are also left-of-center. Given the groupthink that dominates the politically-engaged left, it would be quite difficult to find an American progressive who wouldn't adamantly insist that Nazism should retain its right-wing classification.

That classification has become old and worn out, unsound and outdated. I'm glad to see that many people have come to see that the Nazis were not conservatives.

Since "conservative" and "right-wing" are basically synonyms, it's illogical to categorize Nazism as right-wing. American constitutional conservatism is a limited-government ideology. In contrast, the Nazis' National Socialism was a big-government ideology. Socialism-- of any variety and to any degree-- is inherently left-wing; there's no such thing as right-wing socialism.

Like the Soviet Union, Red China and other communist regimes, Nazi Germany remains infamous for its government's authoritarianism and brutality. The Nazis' racism is still widely reviled, as it should be.

But racism has been verbally reviled to excess by many Americans on the left. Some on the left have become so obsessed with race that they see racism in places where it isn't. People who opposed former president Obama's policies were often wrongly labeled "racists" by a faction on the left. Shame on them. (Memo to the Left: Racism is not a component of American constitutional conservatism; neither is white supremacy. Racial bigotry is an offensive character trait that can be found in people of any race and anywhere across the political spectrum.)

 
It's time for pundits and politicians on the left to quit ginning up race issues. The deluge of their false charges of racism is poisoning the public discourse; they are harming American society.

There are also some on the left who have pinned the word Nazi (or fascist) on people on the right-- not only on white supremacists (many of whom are not particularly conservative), but also (without justification) on Republican politicians and ordinary mainstream conservatives who actually reject white supremacy and have nothing to do with it.

I don't know what the rationale is for such name-calling. But it has become crystal clear to me that grass-roots progressives and Democratic politicians have a need to categorize Nazism and racism as right-wing, and they desperately need to keep them classified that way. That classification guarantees (in their own minds) that their progressive agenda is the polar opposite of Nazism. By embracing racial minorities and LGBTs and Muslims, the progressives and Democrats can crow about how un-Nazi-like they are. So it would seem.

I have news for them. In spite of their embrace of various minorities, the progressives and Democrats have not immunized themselves against becoming hardened authoritarians.

 
It has become apparent that many on the left haven't learned the full lesson from the Nazis' "cleansing" of German society. While it was clearly wrong for the Nazis to specifically target Jews and gays (and others), it's a mistake to be overly focused on the Nazis' racism or on the specific groups that were targeted. The full lesson to be learned is that targeting any group for mistreatment (or extermination) is detestable.

Failure to fully absorb that lesson is why some on the left have started down a dark path. They target conservatives; they target Christians-- not just with degrading language (the menu of slurs is well known: bigot, hater, homophobe, etc.), but also through the power of government (targeting of conservative organizations by the IRS serves as an example).

For decades, the coalition on the left has been moving government in an authoritarian direction (with some set-backs along the way) through legislation and regulations, and more recently, through court rulings. Some examples:

 
The Democrats' healthcare law requires people to buy health insurance [UPDATE: the requirement to buy health insurance was ended in December, 2017], and it contains a variety of other illegitimate mandates, some of which have needlessly driven up the cost of health insurance. ~~  In 2012, Michael Bloomberg-- the paternalist left-wing mayor of New York-- proposed a 16 oz. limit on sugary drinks. ~~  The absurd 55 mph national speed limit (which is now ancient history, thank goodness) was the most prominent part of H.R. 11372  which was introduced in 1973 by Rep. James J. Howard, a Democrat. ~~  Seat belt laws were originally pushed by left-wing paternalists.

On the regulatory front, the Federal Government has, in numerous different cases, wielded a heavy hand in order to protect so-called "wetland" areas. In 1990, James J. Wilson (head of Interstate General Co., L.P.), was facing four felony counts against him, plus multi-million-dollar penalties, and jail time. Wilson's crime? Interstate General had put fill soil on two-and-a-half acres of property that the Army Corps of Engineers had incorrectly declared to be a wetland (click here). ~~  In 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency subjected Mike and Chantell Sackett to a fine of $37,500 a day for failure to remove fill from a lot they had purchased that the EPA later classified as a protected wetland. The lot was zoned for residential construction (click here). (Taking wetland protection to the extremes taken in the cases I have cited here, is clearly the work of people on the left in the EPA and the Corps of Engineers.)

In the realm of court rulings, in Obergefell v. Hodges, five judges on the U.S. Supreme Court (at least four of them clearly left-wing) went beyond their constitutional authority and essentially dictated to the States and to the American people what the new definition of marriage must be (the Court mis-applied the Fourteenth Amendment in Obergefell). ~~  In June 2016, left-wing U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued a gag order preventing the release of undercover video of an abortion conference (click here). ~~  In other court rulings, left-wing judges have thwarted the right to fully follow one's religious beliefs concerning some matters, such as providing services for gay weddings. Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, were fined $135,000 for turning down an order for a cake for a same-sex wedding (click here). In another case, Judge Alexander Ekstrom of Benton County, Washington, ordered florist Barronelle Stutzman to provide full services for same-sex weddings (click here).

It's also worth pointing out that after winning the most delegates in the 2008 Democratic primaries, candidate Barack Obama proposed the creation of a civilian national security force:

 
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the military]." -- Barack Obama

That chilling statement conjures up images of the Geheime Staatspolizei (more commonly referred to as the "Gestapo") during Adolf Hitler's reign. The audience's positive reception of Obama's proposal was perhaps even more chilling than his words (click here).

There are now some on the left-- Antifa activists, some college students, and others-- who are trying to shut down speech they don't like. The Antifa movement-- which feigns to be anti-fascism-- has grown considerably over the last year or so, and it clearly has a vendetta against freedom of speech. Masked Antifa thugs have engaged in much intimidation-- often resorting to violence and property damage-- in an effort to shut down speech they don't like. Images of the Nazis' Brownshirts come to mind (click here).

Through decades of advancing the progressive agenda, the left has been the primary impetus in producing a bloated and wasteful federal government, and an unsustainable level of spending which has produced a massive amount of government debt (much of that debt is at least indirectly fueled by entitlement programs). In addition to creating more debt, full implementation of the progressive agenda will undoubtedly require a more authoritarian government. That clearly places progressivism on the same side of the political divide as communism and the Nazis' National Socialism.

Notice that I said "on the same side of the political divide." I'm not equating progressivism to communism or Nazism, and I'm not saying that one-party rule by the Democrats would result in a holocaust like in Nazi Germany, or Red China, or the Soviet Union. But how is it right to punish people for not buying health insurance? How is it right for the IRS to target conservative groups? How is it right to try to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for their employees' contraceptives through the health care plans the Sisters provide? How is it right to require Christian entrepreneurs to provide services for gay weddings? (By the way, requiring people to perform services against their will is actually unconstitutional-- read Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment.)

  
Many on the left have clearly (and for some of them, inadvertently) stepped onto a slippery-slope of authoritarianism and intolerance-- partly in the name of enforcing the trio of fairness, equality, and inclusiveness (albeit, based on unreasonable definitions of the three).

Squadrons of committed progressives stepped onto that slippery-slope through their own arrogance. Many of them apparently believe that they are Morally Superior to all who oppose their big-government agenda. These self-righteous progressives obviously feel perfectly justified in verbally smearing and deriding their opponents; such is the contempt for others that many progressives have demonstrated.

 
Contempt for others. Doesn't that describe the Nazis as they gained ground in the 1920's?

Given the opportunity, what additional authoritarian mandates or punishments might be imposed on Americans by progressive Democrats in the future? Mandatory re-education for climate-change deniers? Maybe. Psychological therapy for those who reject same-sex marriage? Perhaps. Jail time for home-schoolers? It could happen. Or maybe a limit on how many children you can have? Some progressives have already proposed that.

Progressivism has shackled Americans with debt, dependency, and excessive regulation. Hopefully, the bulk of the American people will come to see how harmful progressivism is, and turn against the Democrats and their unworkable, overbearing "progressive" agenda.

In the meantime, I'll speak directly and firmly to the left, particularly to those who wrap themselves up in Moral Superiority: Learn what "live-and-let-live" really means. Also, next time you feel the urge to yell bigot! or Nazi! or racist!, bite your tongue-- and ponder the direction of that authoritarian slippery-slope on which you are perched. You still have time wise up and step off of it. //

(The author is an American libertarian and is not affiliated with any political party. He favors a non-interventionist foreign policy, and an end to all funding of foreign wars.)

© 2017 Les Govment

..