A friend of mine recently lamented on the “Last of the Righteous” (“Letzte der Gerechte”); I have been giving it considerable thought since his email. Putting aside for the moment the more obvious reasons for the seeming demise of conservative thinking such as so-called “political correctness” and a clumsy if not inept Republican administration; I am concerned as to what actions or non-actions have contributed to this phenomenon. And, what actions, if any, could be taken to reverse the situation.

A study of the objectives, strategies, and tactics of the liberal movement indicates their objectives are as clear today as they were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. At that time the proletariat—no doubt still smarting from their serfdom in the feudal system—had their cause taken up by lazy intellectuals like Karl Marx, et al. ( I am reminded of the comment attributed to Reich Marshall Göering: “When I hear the word ‘intellectual’, I reach for my revolver”.) Marx, neither a member of the elite nor willing to put his shoulder to the wheel as a worker, lived off the largesse of friends and mentors while he stirred up trouble among the working classes. He spent his life beating the tattoo of how “unfair” was the system which permitted the success of those with ideas for products and methods to provide goods and needed services to growing markets. The laboring class was with rare exception bereft of the wit to pour piss out of a boot even though the instructions were printed on the heel.

The Marxist objective was and is the redistribution of wealth according to the precepts of those intellectuals who thereby gain their power from a grateful proletariat. Little if anything has changed today. The ne’er-do-wells, nitwits, and knot-heads still covet that which others have achieved through hard work and thoughtful actions. Leftists of today busy themselves seeking out that which appears to be inequitable—ergo, “unfair”. They deny or refuse to recognize the difference between opportunity and entitlement. Thus the collectivist objective remains consistent and the working class numbskulls remain the pawns in the ongoing economic chess game.

The tactics, however, shift and change as strategic expedience dictates. It vacillates between obstructionism/violence and subterfuge/chicanery depending upon the strategy of the moment. When confrontational activism through strikes, civil disobedience, and violence ceases to be effective the strategy is changed to a more subversive/passive form. Following Chicago’s 1886 Haymarket Riot, realizing the dangers and downside of civil disobedience as a strategy, the decision was made by the radical elements involved to subvert the educational system instilling into the mush-filled heads of our youth the essential “unfairness” of the Capitalist system. A more recent example of this strategic shift is seen with the former Weatherman Underground “terrorist”, William Ayers. Why are we all surprised that after his failed attempts to overthrow our system through violence he disappears only to emerge on the scene 40 years later as an “educator”? And, where else  but the University of Chicago, a veritable hotbed of radical thinking? We have just elected to the Presidency one of his cohorts. Much has been made of Obama’s bad judgment in the choice of his associates—terrorists, radical preachers, and unsavory real estate con men, among others. This misses the point. If he had an equal number of associates who were not of this ilk it might present a different picture. He might be forgiven for his naivtè. But, this is not the case. It seems that all of his early associations are at best questionable. One must presume they all had, at the very least, shared objectives. By his own off-hand remark to “Joe the Plumber” caught on videotape, Obama is focused on redistribution of wealth with the objective of making things “fair”.

He achieved this position through empty rhetoric—utilizing oratory skills unheard in recent times. Whatever one may say in defense of George W. Bush’s skills; oratory would not be numbered among them. Thus if Obama’s objective is, as it would appear from his early associations, that of a collectivist society; then he will have achieved his activist goal through passive means. That is, by oratory, persuasion, and obfuscation of his true objective.

Conversely, an individualist/conservative society, one which functions on individual agency and a free market capitalist system, stands or falls on its merits. If you develop and well manage a product or service that people want—you win. If you create something nobody wants or don’t know how to manage the process—you lose. Everybody, including the government, minds their own business. Those less fortunate in intelligence, acumen, or physical capacity are dealt with through the charity of those who have managed to succeed and wish to share that success with others out of gratitude for their own good fortune. It is a free will culture where everyone must wisely administer their agency. It is essentially a passive process which does not readily lend itself to activist methodologies.

How does one impose on others the imperative necessity to exercise their free will? It would appear therefore it is possible to achieve activist objectives through passive means. Paradoxically, it is difficult if not impossible to achieve passive objectives through activist means. In short; how does one impose a conservative point of view upon the electorate in a manner like unto that which radical liberals are able to impose theirs? What manner of civil disobedience would be required to force the adversary to take responsibility for their own actions and sustenance? I have a hard time visualizing an activist conservative mob carrying placards reading: “Think for Yourself!”  “Hard Times Mean Hard Work!”  “There’s No Free Lunch!”  “Take Charge of Your Life!”           …“God Bless America!”

Advertisements