October 21, 2012


Filed under: Psychology and Politics — psychpol @ 10:01 pm

It is said that if you are not politically left when you are younger, you have no heart. And if you are not politically right when you are older, you have no brain.

Let’s examine one end of the spectrum and understand some of the thought process involved. Do they stand up as logical positions?

Full Disclosure: The author is a former leftist and lifelong Democrat, but now holds the position of independent conservative.

Most would fairly say that leftist ideology is at the heart of the current administration and the Democratic Party. In addition, leftist ideology has been  a large part of the national discussion for the past five years.

What are some of the key issues and beliefs of the left? Do they make reasonable sense in terms of logical consistency?

Several of these core beliefs are identified and discussed below.


This idea embraces the belief that people are essentially the same. We all want the same things. Examples often include personal comfort, family happiness, peace, realization of dreams, religious and personal freedom, etc.

For the leftist, the idea that someone wants to destroy America  is unfathomable. How could this be?

This kind of narcissistic fantasy is found among very young children. It is a way the child seeks comfort with respect to an unpredictable environment. Imagination and pretending serve to manage the child’s anxiety and fear.

For the adult, this belief provides a sense of personal safety. The downside is engendering a tendency to deny facts.

For example, regarding the Benghazi, Libya attack and brutal murder of four Americans, the Obama administration attributed the event to an obscure video that enraged protestors. The coverup continues today.

The facts are that it was the anniversary of 9/11, there was no demonstration, and real-time observers saw an armed force attack the US consulate. This was the third attack in 2012.

So, are we to believe that the average terrorist has a computer, knows how to operate it and scans youtube?

This core belief also allows our borders to be breached by potential terrorists and others. After all, they are just harmless “dreamers” surging into our country. 

Some leftists won’t use the words “war on terror,” preferring “man-made disaster,” a sanitized term that minimizes threat.

These seemingly illogical positions emanate from the belief that all people are the same. Critical differences are ignored.

Such a position appears to violate our basic sense of survival when we are being threatened by a dedicated enemy. This is a curious position if you accept the idea that our very survival is at stake.


Leftist orthodoxy believes that, even within America, cultural diversity is the politically correct description of our people. Such differences must be honored by all.

In this line of thought, all socioeconomic, ethnic, racial, immigrant, religious, sexual preference and even artistic groups are of equal value and must be respected as such.

Each is simply a different expression of some characteristic or lifestyle preference. Each is of equivalent value by virtue of its identity.

Notably, this position holds for other countries and international cultures, be it Iran or Syria or North Korea. They are just different, not of greater or lesser value to humanity.

Domestically, our overriding culture is to be a member of America. For the leftist, this broad categorization of the people is quite uncomfortable.

Rather it is subcultures that provide true identity. Thus, cultural diversity is presented as the correct way of classifying the American people into groups.

Some prominent political identities  include:  “I am black, I am white, I am hispanic, I am gay, I am a woman”, and others. These “cultures” have become the foundation  for leftist, identity politics so prevalent today. 

This type of grouping also produces much legal activity in the US. Many lawsuits and government interventions pertain to discrimination against some type of minority subculture.

Accepting all cultures fails to recognize, for example, the barbarism of radical Islamists and Sharia Law which permits such things as the “honor” killing of one’s own child, usually female.  Or, the systematic repression of women in many Islamic countries.

Or, events such as the recent shooting of a 14-year-old girl in Pakistan who believed that females should be educated. She was shot in the head by a member of the Taliban “culture” and, in all probability, will never be the same person.

Where are the outraged leftist voices, the feminists, the president, the cultural diversity squad? Silent.

Where is the outrage against the persecution of women under Sharia Law?

There is more feminist ire directed at women who choose to stay home and raise their children. For the leftist, such women have failed to live up to their potential.  A homemaker is somehow less worthwhile.

Remember the bash by the Democratic strategist, Hilary Rosen, against Ann Romney? The attacks on Sarah Palin, successful woman in the world and one who values marriage and  family?

Better for the leftist to criticize the conservative woman, no?  Somehow that subculture is not worthy of respect and equanimity.

The same principle holds when the beliefs of Islamic fundamentalists are examined. According to many sources, about 15% of the 1.3  billion Muslims in the world are anti-Western radicals. Do the math.

This group wishes to destroy us. You and me. It is a religious imperative and duty. It is God’s command…

Look at the horror that is Boston. Once again we are attacked by the true believers.

But, for the leftist,  they are simply another “culture” and therefore worthy of a measure of respect.

African-American “artists” who record Hip-Hop music denigrating women, encourages killing police and expresses hatred and racism toward whites,  is seen by the leftist as just another cultural expression. After all, it is simply the “voice of the street”, and is therefore valid, whatever its moral essence.

In fact, let’s teach it in college, says the tolerant leftist. Shakespeare, Plato, Hip Hop, what’s the difference?

The terrible youth violence in inner cities, or the abandonment of offspring by a majority of  “fathers”, or the fear that many inner city residents experience daily is unworthy of leftist outrage.

So this belief in the equivalence of subcultures espoused by the leftist essentially prohibits  the comparison of different groups on moral grounds.  It further erodes the individual’s power of discernment, and the broader culture of America.


The leftist embraces the noble goal of equality among all people. The idea is to make certain that each person receives equal rights under the Constitution. This is the correct starting point in America.

However, why are some groups granted special status? The assumption seems to be that they are not equal. If all groups were, then why privileges for some?

Leftists argue that being white is a privilege, albeit a corrupting one. Whites are born into this status, and inevitably exploit those that are not. They just can’t help it. And they ought to feel bad about this “privilege.”

So, the idea of equality does not apply to whites in American society in the eyes of the “progressive.” To be born white is akin to a child coming into this world with a kind of racial original sin, according to the leftist.

Many exceptional benefits have been extended to minorities, for example, affirmative action. This simply gives preference, or grant dollars, based on race. Many universities have a quota system whereby race is part of the admission equation.

University of Texas is one such institution, and a case is being litigated by the US Supreme Court.

If all are equals, why are there such discriminatory practices? Why do blacks and hispanics have admission preferences in higher education?  Why does the US census or other federal documents even ask for someone’s race?

For blacks, it is argued that slavery must be rectified through compensatory social policy. However, there are no living slaves or slave masters. Why reward one group and punish another, when neither was part of the slavery period?

In government contracting, the idea of “set asides” is often mandated by law. This means that a certain amount of dollars for a given contract must be awarded to minority companies. Why not award to the best quality and price bidder, regardless of race?

Wouldn’t such a solution emanate from a true belief in the equality of all?

Just like in the US Constitution and The Declaration of Independence?

The fact is that, for the leftist, some groups are more equal and deserving than others. The trumpeting of the equality of all is often a ruse to cover the social justice agenda which is based on discrimination against one group or another.

The honest leftist does not recognize such flaws in their logic. The dishonest one does, pushing instead an agenda of inequality in the name of  “social and economic justice.”


Since all cultures must be respected, this idea implies that personal freedom and expression are also to be valued. In fact, many leftists celebrate individuality and its expression, or the importance of finding one’s identity through life experimentation. Don’t hold back. Find your inner voice.

Conservatives are seen as repressive, uptight and controlling, out of touch with themselves. Perhaps prudish as well.

However, among such free thinkers, one hears voices for suppressing media outlets like Fox News. Fox is regularly attacked and there are calls to shut it down.

The “Fairness Doctrine” would be one such legislative strategy for controlling what people say on the airwaves. It is not conservatives who support this concept.

Conservatives may criticize outlets such as MSNBC, or the liberal media on the networks, but do not call for its closing.

Although leftists enshrine diversity and tolerance, they often deplore those who think differently. Orthodox thought may be more valued.

And while this is not unusual among true believers on both sides, the left seems to have more difficulty celebrating the First Amendment when political differences are on the table.

Some leftists appear to perceive themselves as brighter than the right. In fact, certain members of the media seem to have a kind of “perma-smirk” that suggests their intellectual superiority. (Check this out for yourself if you don’t believe this author – which is OK by the way).

If the leftist values diversity, then what is wrong with diverse political thought, and hearing one another’s ideas?

If one examines socialist revolutions since 1917,  the first order of business for “people’s revolutions” is to slaughter those who think differently. What began as a noble surge against the power structure by the people, often becomes an orthodoxy that eliminates many lives.

In fact, Obama’s former communications director, now a DC lobbyist, Anita Dunn, has stated that Mao is one of her two  most admired political leaders. However, in the case of Mao, 60 million fellow citizens were murdered.

Who would say this?

To see that leftists like Dunn admire such a monster is truly enlightening  and not a little troubling for those who reject the leftist line. 

Dunn, by the way, was coaching Obama for the 2012 debate series.

Some argue that leftists are in fact the most orthodox of groups when it comes to free expression and political dissent.

How can this be if personal expression and diversity are sacred to the left?


There are abundant examples of the clash between individual choice and government attempts to control the individual.

So, why do leftists want to control individual choices involving things like the size of a soda that one can buy in New York City. Or, the number of calories a high school kid can eat at school? Or whether we can choose a particular health insurance plan or provider? Or whether a private company can drill on federal lands to produce needed oil?

In the extreme, leftists such as the late Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, have appropriated US oil company assets “for the people.”  This man of the people has also silenced news outlets that might disagree with him. Ah, yes, for the people’s own good.

The rationale appears to be that such controls are in the individual’s own interest, as in limiting obesity, or the collective interest, such as protecting the habitat. There is value  in these types of goals.

Is there a better way to accomplish them that respects individual freedom and differences?

Obamacare is an example of expanding government control of our health care choices. This is in contrast to the conservative line which supports expanding our ability to buy insurance across state lines.

The conservative approach would allow us to buy insurance wherever we please. Presumably, insurers would compete for our business. Those with lower prices would win. Those that had poor service offerings and quality, even with lower prices, would lose.

In Obamacare, as with all managed care systems, care decisions will be made by a distant group of case managers. They will decide if grandmother “deserves” a new hip, or the chance to extend her life by five years.

There is very specific language in the Affordable Care Act (2400 pages) regarding these and other federal mandates. It is coming our way soon.

In fact, Obamacare also attempts to co-opt scientific medicine by establishing a review board that determines the best available diagnostic tools and treatments. 

This has been the province of academic medicine, the research community and pharma companies running clinical trials, with results presented to the FDA for evaluation.

As of today there are over 15,000 pages of regulations developed by HHS. They aren’t finished. But we are.

In the case of the Catholic Church, their opposition to mandatory provision of contraception has been dismissed. In fact, the Catholic Bishops have sued  in an attempt to maintain the religious freedom provision of the Constitution.

They must not realize that contraception is good for you, because this is a sacred cow for the leftist. Ah, such outdated thinking by the Church must be remedied by the all-knowing leftist government…

Curiously, the leftist is not troubled by the countless attempts  government makes to control our lives. It is for “our own good,” so personal choice is irrelevant.

Eat your spinach, children!

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to say that government has exceeded its legitimate authority to provide for the common welfare?


The traditional American ideal of upward mobility has been at the foundation of our country.  Hard work and success were seen as desirable pursuits.

For the leftist, wealth somehow implies a corrupt person. They must have exploited someone else to achieve this.

Thus, we saw hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the Obama campaign to discredit Romney “as a rich guy who doesn’t care.” It worked.

The logic here appears to ignore the wealthy who contribute to Democratic campaigns, for example, Hollywood celebrities or business people. If you donate to the president, and are rich, well then you are simply enlightened.

If you are a rich Democratic politician, like John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi or the president, you are an exception, because such wealthy leftists really “care” about the middle class. They did not exploit anyone in achieving their wealth.

How could they? They are leftist believers and nobler than thou.

Thus, we have the “limousine liberal”  who travels in privates jets, leaves a large carbon footprint, hob-nobs with the wealthy, benefits from Congressional legislation by trading stocks, receives gifts from lobbyists (including evil oil companies) and on and on.

If wealth is corrupt, why shouldn’t it be true for everyone?

In fact, the president likes to vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, an elite social environment.

Why doesn’t he go to the South side of Chicago to vacation? Or a steelworker or autoworker town like Pittsburgh or Detroit? You know, where “the people” are.

Or if you are a declared environmentalist, why not take the family to Yellowstone or Glacier or any National Park?  These are treasures of our American heritage.

Why does it cost $40,000 per plate to attend a campaign rally if the rich are corrupt? Why can’t middle class folks pay, say $5 , and attend the rally?

Or if you are pro woman, why did the president take one million dollars from the misogynist, Bill Maher?

Once again, principle is discarded when personal gain and power are available. And reason is discarded along with it.

The purpose of such anti-wealth rhetoric is to enrage the masses, a foundational process in class warfare, and may be a cover for that politician’s personal corruption of principle. 

Interestingly, conservatives donate substantially more money to charities than do leftists. So, who really “cares”? Who uses their wealth to benefit the many?

How about wealth and success for all people, and the celebration of achievement for all of us?


Since the 2008 and 2012 elections of the president, many leftists use the line that if you disagree, you are a racist. That is why you don’t like him or what he is doing.

But, remember, the leftist “values” diversity and free expression. Isn’t that true?

So, if one disagrees with a Obama policy, and has solid reasoning for doing so, they are simply racist. Their ideas have no merit and are not worthy of consideration.

There have been several odd examples of this thinking in the media. Here, seemingly innocuous statements are interpreted as racially motivated in an almost clinically bizarre fashion.

And only whites can be racists. Blacks are somehow too elevated for such attitudes. Like the film director, Spike Lee, wearing a T-shirt on the day after the 2008 election proclaiming “My President Is Black.” Not racist?

Isn’t he the president of all of us?

Or how about the Congressional Black Caucus, or Hispanic Caucus in the Congress? Not racist?

Or the “Reverend” Al Sharpton and his history of provoking racial conflict in the face of tragedies like Trayvon Martin?

Or the comments of our president following the killing of Trayvon Martin? Or those of other black leaders, before all the facts were known?

Shouldn’t we all band together to condemn ANY racism by ANY group against ANY other group?

Notions such as “reverse discrimination” beg the question and somehow temper the severity of the action.

Some actions by the Eric Holder Justice Department have been questionable at best. The presence of New Black Panther Party individuals at a Philadelphia polling site in 2008 is illustrative. While in uniform and holding billy clubs, on the steps of the polling place, they threatened white voters.

They have since proclaimed an intention to kill white babies.  Must be justified by their “oppression.” Where are the leftist voices decrying such racism?

Even amongst liberal jurists, this action violated the Voting Rights Act. Did AG Holder prosecute this crime? No. Why not? Is this decision  racism, and if so, why wasn’t it challenged and corrected by the current administration?

Our president didn’t miss a beat in condemning a white Cambridge Massachusetts police sergeant who arrested a black Harvard professor.  

As with Trayvon Martin, all the facts were not known, but that did not stop the rush to judgement. Why?.

Impugning those as having racial motivation if they politically disagree obscures the real problem of racism in America.

Tackling this problem requires identifying it when facts are present, no matter if one is left or right, and steadfastly holding to that basic obligation and principle.


The basic reality is that some of us have been victimized. We may have been abused as children, hit by a drunk driver,  assaulted by criminals, injured in combat or perhaps now suffer from a severe mental or physical disorder. 

We may have been born into abuse and poverty as a lifestyle.

One may have been the victim of devastating medications during our mother’s pregnancy. Or defective consumer products. We may have been the victim of con artists or dishonest relatives who stole our assets.

Yes, there is true victimhood for some. And for those with some capacity, their challenge becomes attaining the maximum level of possible independence in life. There are many stories of great courage in this regard.

As a society, we should support them in every way possible.

But the concept of victim has attained a certain hallowed status among the left. If your personal failures manifest, you may be a victim. You may even be on the Oprah or Montel shows.  Have no shame, welcome fame!

This has spawned an enormous legal industry that represents alleged victims of any number of events. For example, illegal immigrants may be seen as victims of some discriminatory practice. Women in the workplace may be victims of inequitable pay or legitimate harassment.

Or a girl without a father who can’t go to the Father – Daughter Dance can stop the dance for ALL the other kids and parents because she has been “discriminated” against.

Or the atheist who doesn’t like religious displays may, along with the ACLU, block those for entire communities, thus depriving everyone else of that enjoyment.

Ah, the power of victimhood. To win by losing…

Like in the White House, where women make 18% less than their male counterparts.

The victimization of America often extends to situations that attempt to absolve individuals of personal responsibility.

For example, there was a recent case involving Connecticut firefighters who took a test for promotion. In general, white firefighters did better than black or hispanic test takers, though there was one exception. Thus, the white firefighters were to be promoted.

However, as is too often the case, litigation claiming discrimination ensued. It was stated that the test discriminated against the minority firefighters. The evidence? Some test takers did better than others.

In almost any testing situation, some will do better than others. This is the nature of most tests.

In general, the brighter and harder workers will perform better. Simple idea, no?

But the leftist concludes that the test must be “biased,” and that differential intelligence and motivation will have no effect on test scores.

This is a fairly typical example of  leftist “logic.”  The environment is blamed for treating someone differently, and the outcome is not the individual’s  responsibility.

Such logic is extended to kids who do poorly in school. Absent  “fathers,” and druggie “moms” who brain damage their newborns and many criminals get this special status from the left.

All this must be our fault. It’s the video, that’s why they killed four Americans. You, America, are at fault! Tired of this, fellow Americans?

Look at the crazy parents of the Boston terrorists, blaming America after having lived on state and federal welfare provided by working taxpayers.

People are not responsible for their actions.  It’s the “system,” whatever that may mean.

Of course, the current administration leads the way in this type of distorted thinking. Reassuring for our safety and future, don’t you think?

Some groups come to attain a certain entitlement status. For example, even though the illegal breaks our laws, they are somehow entitled to the same protections as an American citizen. Or they may be entitled to sanctuary,  a driver’s license,  health care, social services, “benefits” or even a job.

For the leftist, these groups are victims and we must pay for vague injustices that occurred years ago. We may not even know what we have done, if anything.

Illegals are special victims for the leftist, and it must be our imperialism that has caused their illegal actions. They are just “dreamers, ” even the 20% of all prisoners in the American penal system who are illegals. Just a bunch of dreamers, right?

So to the leftist, the least productive may become the most entitled and valued as illustrating the need for social and economic injustice un America .

Are such groups not personally responsible for their choices? Aren’t you and I? What is different?

To the leftist, the idea of choice and choosing is somehow extracted from the neurologic and psychologic makeup of victim groups. Witness the gun debate. It is the weapon, not the person.

Doesn’t this sound like discrimination on simple logical grounds?

To summarize,  this piece is an examination of some of the widely held beliefs among the left, and the contradictions that appear to be present.

Certain conservative principles have been used here to highlight the illogical essence of these  leftist assertions.

This is particularly important because never before has the US had an administration that so embodies leftist ideology. It is a remarkable achievement for progressives, but one fraught with peril for most of us.

Why don’t the leftists directly come out with their beliefs and goals? Because we would easily reject it. It is not at our core as Americans.

In November 2012, we again had a chance to change the tide of history. Whatever  the corruption of our political system, there were vast differences between Obama and Romney.

Wonder how many Obama voters even understand Obama’s radical philosophy?

Should many of us continue pretending that our president is a moderate who really “cares” about us, as if we needed a new parent or spouse?

Does this “caring” image  fit his actions while in office?  The record?

If we examine our logic and political positions,  it may guide us as active citizens and future intelligent voters. 

Look at your logic, whether you are  left or right, and see if it makes rational sense. Think it through. Talk to others.

Take a stand, it is our choice.


1 Comment »

  1. […] LEFTIST LOGIC. […]

    Pingback by LEFTIST LOGIC « psychpol — October 21, 2012 @ 10:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: