The Religious Left
Obama’s desire to raise taxes on the wealthy (and even the not-especially-wealthy) during an economic downturn has not gone unnoticed on Ricochet lately. Surely some of the president’s advisors also have suggested to him that this policy is a bad idea. As an Economist briefing recently concluded after a survey of the evidence, “higher rates on the rich are not . . . a free lunch. At low levels rate increases will lift revenue, but not without a cost in efficiency and short-term growth. If the budget is a government’s primary concern, then the evidence is that reforms which close loopholes and broaden the tax base are a more efficient way to bring in more money than higher taxes for the rich.”
Destructive economic policies in the name of equality do make a certain amount of sense, though, if an overriding goal takes priority over economic consequences. For many on the left, this goal has a religious quality. The ordinary concerns by which most people measure success or failure of a policy become sacrificed to the religious end. Example: we know that French-style socialism results in something like ten percent structural unemployment; and yet, most people solidly on the left still want French-style socialism.
It is of course impossible to know whether Obama himself in fact embraces this type of religious enthusiasm, or whether he genuinely believes that his policies will be efficacious. Any individual case is beside the point. Eric Voegelin in The New Science of Politics describes the type of Gnostic religiosity which crops up all too often in modernity. For most orthodox Christians, the spiritual and the temporal are distinct spheres. According to modern Gnosticism, however, secular history becomes divinized.
What follows is a disconnect with facts on the ground. “In the Gnostic dream world,” Voegelin argues, “nonrecognition of reality is the first principle. As a consequence, types of action which in the real world would be considered as morally insane because of the real effects which they have will be considered moral in the dream world because they intended an entirely different effect.”
The religious quality of progressivism explains why the left somehow manages to maintain an aura of moral superiority, very often despite the facts. Most conservatives have the experience of being perceived as bad, wicked or mean when their political views are identified. We have all made the arguments many times: “No, it is not bad to support the free market, the unemployed could use more jobs”; “No, it is not wicked to support strong families, children need them”; “No, it is not mean to support law enforcement, how would you like to have been a British shopkeeper recently?” Voegelin notes “the readiness of the dreamers to stigmatize the attempt at critical clarification as an immoral enterprise.”
Perhaps the left’s aura of moral superiority will persist because religious enthusiasm applied to the political sphere is somehow more attractive, convincing or exciting than common sense. God help us all.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Feb '11
Re: The Religious Left
In The Screwtape Letters (C S Lewis), the senior devil looks forward to the emergence of "the materialist magician" among humans. This seems to be exactly what is happening now, with many "progressives" asserting their distaste for religion at the same time they believe in magical crystals and vague mystical "forces."
Aug '10
Re: The Religious Left
I wouldn't count on it.
Mar '11
Re: The Religious Left
I think if I hear the President or his supporters suggest one more time that the rich need to "pay their fair share" I'm going to throw up. I wish Republicans would fight back harder on what fair means because it goes against all logic given the actual distribution of taxes paid in this country.
Dec '10
Re: The Religious Left
Spot on. The left's version of "fair" was most eloquently stated by Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
May '10
Re: The Religious Left
It's a fundamental confusion about means and ends. Take this recent example from Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a professor at the Theological Seminary in Chicago. She writes, "Americans sharing more equally in the burden of pulling our country out of massive debt, and using tax revenue to stimulate the economy and create jobs isn’t 'class warfare,' it’s actually Christianity."
Her evidence? Cooperative charity in the early New Testament church. So because Christians are commanded to provide for the poor and did so voluntarily within a small community--because that is a proper end--it necessarily follows that the government should be the means to this end. Government should steal from the rich like Robin Hood and redistribute it. Forget the actual results. If the intended results are beneficent, then the act is sanctified. It's in the Bible, gosh darn it!
Edited on September 28, 2011 at 7:02pmDec '10
Re: The Religious Left
The left's view of fairness and justice is to force the successful to experience "trickle up poverty".
Sep '10
Re: The Religious Left
I am uncertain if the term” religious “is being used to mean something more than “un-rational – emotional”. That aside I would suggest that perhaps both the right and left operate from the same perspective. While the left generally expresses its felt superiority in moral terms, the right generally does so in intellectual terms. (How can these well educate liberals be so dumb.) I see the right continually argue they are in favor of increasing revenue, but this should be done by boarding the base and growth. When in fact when looked at rationally we should be striving to restrict the amount of revenue being made available to the government not increase it. Each side appears to have its “religious” chants; it is just more difficult for each side to see it in themselves.
Apr '11
Re: The Religious Left
Oh, Phui! I was going to bring up Voegelin, and then I clicked on the "Show more" link.
Just to add to what you wrote, Voegelin said that just as mediaeval Gnosticism was a Christian heresy, so might we consider its manifestations in modern totalitarian ideologies, including Rousseau and the French revolution.
Another point of connection between religion and the modern Left (In Liberal Fascism, Jonah defines Fascism as "a religion of the state".) is that the various outbreaks of radical communalism in mediaeval and Renaissance Europe twisted Christian doctrine into heresy and showed socialism’s consistent hostility toward family/marriage, liberty/property, and religion, [cf. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness].
Protestant reformers were important parts of the Progressive movement--Prohibition is another thing that being a liberal excuses you from having to apologize for. Methodism had an especially strong political current. Hillary Rodham Clinton was profoundly influenced by her experience in Methodist youth groups. It is no accident that in 2008, when she was asked whether she is a “liberal”, she replied, “Oh, I prefer to use that good old American term ‘Progressive’”.
May '11
Re: The Religious Left
I am actually using the term "religious" loosely to refer to an ultimate commitment. Emotion often goes along with religion, but is not the gist of it. For orthodox Christians, the ultimate commitment is to a transcendent God. The religious left, as Grendel elaborates in #8, transfers that commitment to secular history.
Jun '10
Re: The Religious Left
The Religious Left that Obama hangs around with, like Jim Wallis, are actually just Marxists--nothing more, nothing less. They talk Jesus and "social justice" just because "class struggle" and "redistribution of wealth" doesn't open as many doors for them as (Comrade) Jesus does.
Apr '11
Re: The Religious Left
In #8, I alluded to Socialism's hostility to basic American principles. There is an elaboration on the idea that Socialism really is un-American here.
Nov '10
Re: The Religious Left
Thanks. Excellent post.
Just this morning I took down my copy of "The New Science of Politics" in order to re-visit some issues in light of David Goldman's recent book "How Civilizations Die". Voegelin's seminal work repays regular study. As to the impenetrability of the liberal mindset, I chalk it up to the solipsism that is the soul of liberalism as religion. It entitles them to certify victims and thus validate their own self-image by providing a simple way to take a stand --and it's all about the stand. They operate automatically with a highly selective indignation, a filter, that simply rejects anything that doesn't ratify their moral certitude. It is a logic-free circularity: the need for moral certainty regulates the filter, and the filter ratifies the moral certainty. Nothing can undermine it because nothing can get in. The old joke about a conservative being a liberal who's been mugged has some truth: it usually takes an act of violence to break the circle.
Edited on October 3, 2011 at 1:03amApr '11
Re: The Religious Left
L.T. Rahe
I am actually using the term "religious" loosely to refer to an ultimate commitment. Emotion often goes along with religion, but is not the gist of it. For orthodox Christians, the ultimate commitment is to a transcendent God. The religious left, as Grendel elaborates in #8, transfers that commitment to secular history. · Sep 28 at 10:38am
I think what you are referring to is 'faith'. Many liberal beliefs are faith-based in spite cherry-picked facts that are often distorted beyond recognition. Liberalism quite often has little grounding in reality whatsoever. They offer up visions of a perfect world if we all just place our faith in them. Meanwhile, when their policies are implemented, reality flies in the face of their perceived vision.
Sep '11
Re: The Religious Left
Brandon Zaffini: ....Take this recent example from Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite...
Her evidence? Cooperative charity in the early New Testament church. So because Christians are commanded to provide for the poor and did so voluntarily within a small community--because that is a proper end--it necessarily follows that the government should be the means to this end.
In theological circles this is sometimes known as "isogesis"--reading your notions into the text, rather than learning from the text (exegesis). A specific reference to a specific group of people in a specific place and time (cf Acts 2:42-47) is not the same thing as ceding care for the poor to Caesar; or commanding the faithful to cheerlead for Caesar enacting the sorts of revenue strategies that gave tax collectors such a bad rap in the Gospels.
But she's a leftie, both politically and theologically, so she's probably confident that nobody is going to read the text and call her on the silliness of her position.
Dec '10
Re: The Religious Left
John Murdoch
Brandon Zaffini: ....Take this recent example from Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite...
Her evidence? Cooperative charity in the early New Testament church. So because Christians are commanded to provide for the poor and did so voluntarily within a small community--because that is a proper end--it necessarily follows that the government should be the means to this end.
In theological circles this is sometimes known as "isogesis"--reading your notions into the text, rather than learning from the text (exegesis). A specific reference to a specific group of people in a specific place and time (cf Acts 2:42-47) is not the same thing as ceding care for the poor to Caesar; or commanding the faithful to cheerlead for Caesar enacting the sorts of revenue strategies that gave tax collectors such a bad rap in the Gospels.
But she's a leftie, both politically and theologically, so she's probably confident that nobody is going to read the text and call her on the silliness of her position. · Sep 28 at 12:33pm
Socialism failed in 1st century Judea, too. But, the Left never learns from history.
Dec '10
Re: The Religious Left
I reject this equivalency and encourage other conservatives to argue against it. There is nothing irrational about increasing federal revenue, it just isn't something conservatism advocates. While the first principle of conservatism is limited government, there isn't a philosophy in the world to which the adherents hold 100% to all its tenets.
I never call educated liberals "dumb". They have destructive and irrational beliefs, but to say they are stupid would be un"reason"able. Destructive is worse than stupid.
Sep '11
Re: The Religious Left
Western Chauvinist
Socialism failed in 1st century Judea, too.
The first century church wasn't socialism: it was sharing. There's a difference.
Example 1: You're the victim of domestic abuse: I invite you and your daughter to live in our house for as long as necessary to get your life sorted out, sharing our food, joining our household. I do not accept payment.
Example 2: A government worker surveys the neighborhood, and observes that my house has three registered occupants, but 1500 square feet. Since the local council has determined that 300 square feet per person is a reasonable standard for living space, our home has plenty of space for two more residents. She appears at my door, with you and your possessions behind her, ready to move in. I am instructed that in addition to providing you with room, I am to provide you with at least 2000 calories per day of healthy, nutritious food in accordance with government regulations and guidelines. I do not get paid.
One is sharing. The other is socialism.
(FWIW, Example 1 actually happened.)
Dec '10
Re: The Religious Left
The left trusts government; the right doesn’t. The left distrusts the individual (except oneself?); the right doesn’t. In God the right trusts; not the left (both may have faith in God, but the left is more distrustful, argumentative). In business the right trusts, not the left. In the authority of the family and social traditions too. The right has trust in the benefits of competition; the left doesn’t, and unable to avoid competition, attempts to circumvent it.
These are all patterns of behavior. Why does Peter trust the government to take from him to give to Paul? The same reason as for this Poll: Men are for Rick, women are for Mitt? Alpha-male conservatives are protectors; alpha-male leftists are predators. The left is more passive-aggressive, beta-males tend more to the left.
Were leftists-feminists-cryptocommunists right, everyone could pattern their behavior like an alpha-male protector. But then, there would be no more leftists.
Therefore, leftists-feminists-cryptocommunists are wrong. Genetic differences will always determine behavior in a normal distribution curve manner. There will always be leftists attempting to circumvent competition and prey on the weak saying they are trying to help them.
Dec '10
Re: The Religious Left
John Murdoch
Western Chauvinist
Socialism failed in 1st century Judea, too.
Example 2: A government worker surveys the neighborhood, and observes that my house has three registered occupants, but 1500 square feet. Since the local council has determined that 300 square feet per person is a reasonable standard for living space, our home has plenty of space for two more residents. She appears at my door, with you and your possessions behind her, ready to move in. I am instructed that in addition to providing you with room, I am to provide you with at least 2000 calories per day of healthy, nutritious food in accordance with government regulations and guidelines. I do not get paid.
One is sharing. The other is socialism.
(FWIW, Example 1 actually happened.) · Sep 28 at 1:40pm
Yeah, obviously Marx hadn't been born yet. However, what the early Christian community had in common with socialism is collectivism, in the sense of a blurring of boundaries on property ownership, etc. What's yours is mine and what's yours is mine (not a typo). And, having confused personal redemption through Christ with collective redemption through human agency, the community failed to retain its cohesion.
Sep '10
Re: The Religious Left
Western Chauvinist
I reject this equivalency and encourage other conservatives to argue against it. There is nothing irrational about increasing federal revenue, it just isn't something conservatism advocates. While the first principle of conservatism is limited government, there isn't a philosophy in the world to which the adherents hold 100% to all its tenets.
A person can come to a position by un-rational means and that position can still be soundly rational. Saying the left's positions are held because of "religious" beliefs does not in and of itself say anything about the validity of their positions. It is I think an attempt to explain why they hold them in the face of seemingly contradictory evidence. Suggesting that conservatives may also arrive at and hold positions through a similar process is not suggesting and equivalency between the positions. If, as you write, conservatism does not advocate increasing federal revenue, perhaps you could explain why almost all conservative elected officials are advocating that federal revenue be increased? The current debate is not about increasing revenue, but HOW to increase revenue.