The Left know who they are.

As I was eating lunch the other day, I forget if I was listening to a podcast or if there was a T.V. on in the background, I overheard someone say that the Left and Right do not know who they are. I am very skeptical of this claim.

First and foremost, the Left can effectively organize and carry out what it wants. This doesn’t mean they ever achieve what they want, but they do know how they’d get there. On the other hand, the Right complains about how it's unfairly treated. In essence, the Left can identify each other as conspecifics or members of the same group; the Right cannot, or the Right does not see itself as a group. "We're all just individuals, man." This is, I think, what is better known as the “friend-enemy” distinction. This will not be the topic of today’s discussion. Instead, I wish to continue my analysis of James Burnham’s work: Suicide of the West.

James Burnham does a rather exquisite job laying out the symptomatology of Liberalism, but he also goes one step further; he defines Liberalism as an order of values using the Liberal’s words. Liberalism is defined by the following: Peace, Justice, Freedom, and Liberty. The Liberal frequently expresses these values, in that given order. There is variation between any two members of the Liberal ideology, but this does not disprove the general tendencies liberals express. From these ordering principles, more so than values, Burnham then qualifies the ideals or values of the Liberal order: “Innovation, reform, equality, cooperation, collective welfare, security, internationalism, the survival and betterment of mankind, [and] peace.” Again, any given liberal can typically be characterized by these ideals or aims.

What’s remarkable about Burnham’s description, which was first published in 1964, is that it stands today. Liberalism is defined, as I see it, as an obsession with rectifying the problems caused by inequity and injustice. For the liberals, poverty is never seen as a natural product of a hierarchical system; the downtrodden are never seen as capable of establishing an equilibrium amongst themselves. Ignorance and irrationality are never seen as a natural product of essential differences in intellectual faculties; it is only a product of poor education. Never mind that some of the most educated people on Earth have done and continue to do the most heinous and barbaric things. Injustice or inequality can never be seen as a natural outgrowth of a system derived from a set of values held by a particular group of people at the expense of others; both justice and equality must be achieved through “reasonable” action via institutional intercession. Serendipitously, it just so happens that all the “reasonable” people are on the Left wherever you look. People cannot be expected to provide for their children or themselves. Instead, the State and its institutions must care for and provide for the indigent. The differences between nations can never be attributed to the character of those nations or their people (from the Liberal’s weltanschauung, there can be no essential character of a people); instead, it must be attributed to material inequality, war, exploitation, or poverty, which stem from, as if it needs to be restated, the ignorance and suppressed potentials of those poorer people.

The perspective of the Liberal requires them to intercede on behalf of the “oppressed.” No good, rational, and educated person can turn their back on oppression (do ignore that “oppression” is also defined by the Liberal). The world's problems (injustice, inequality, and the violent struggles between any two men) necessitate that the Left uses institutional control to bring any (on the Right) who would cause injustice, violence, or inequality into line. You will be peaceful and conform, even if that requires the Left to be violent and oppressive. The need of the Liberal to ensure peace and justice also, as Burnham highlights, requires them to tamper down on the freedoms of all peoples. He deftly highlights that, while Brown v. Board of Education did desegregate schools, it deprived Black and White families of the right to send their children to segregated schools. I.e., Black families, as well as White families, no longer have the freedom to send their children to segregated schools. While in one instance, there was the possibility of both freedoms, now only one is mandated. What freedom!

What’s most striking for me about the Liberal’s ideology is their hatred of nations. This, Burnham suggests, comes from their devaluation of Liberty and, by extension, Patriotism. If Liberals are patriotic, such that they have an affinity for their nation, they are so only to extent that their people or culture tends toward globalization and cultural homogenization. Differentiation, true nationalistic tendencies, the Liberal must sacrifice. He can only be proud of his nation as it destroys itself in the name of Peace and Justice. This requires him to advocate for the destruction of his people; he has to see their denaturation as a good thing. He will cheer as his cultural monuments are dismantled and brought to ruin; they represent a bygone and backward era and people. He will be giddy with delight as his nation’s institutions and the defining documents of those institutions are desacralized and burnt as an offering to the global, world order. For his final act, he’ll probably throw himself on those pyres and his ideology with him.

Yet, in some sense, the Liberal understands all of this about himself. He doesn’t need to be reminded of it. It would be surprising if he had to be conscious of the fact that he behaves this way – it might detract from the feeling of self-righteousness he gets as he destroys himself. It is the Right that fails to regard the Liberal for who he is. In many ways, Suicide of the West wasn’t written for Liberals so that they could better understand themselves. Instead, it was written for the Right to understand who their opponents are. Unfortunately, as it stands today, the Conservative movement, as the name suggests, is preserving the self-immolating ideology of Liberalism. The Conservatives preserve an ideology that has inundated its forefathers’ culture with fire and ash. Mindlessly and to appease a larger pool of voters who seek to destroy them, because Liberals ultimately are self-destructive, Conservatives have adopted the identity and ideology of their opponent.

The contemporary Right and Conservatives – if they preserve the Liberal World Order (and the latter do) – cannot distinguish themselves from those who seek to destroy them; they too are effectively advocating for their self-destruction. All the cool kids are doing it, so why shouldn’t they? This is also probably why many Americans feel as if there’s no longer a two-party system in the United States. The phrase “uni-party” is becoming more common. The use of this phrase stems from the fact that both parties have drunk the Liberal Kool-Aid and are now on the path to self-annihilation. Like Thelma and Louise, they’re heading over a cliff. Unfortunately, they could take the country with them.

Where does this leave the constituency of the Right and Conservatives? They have no identity, either, that isn’t defined by Liberalism. The Left has an identity – their weltanschauung has become the prevailing doctrine – and they are surrounded by it. This is why they know they can protest and receive praise from media outlets generally; they know their side won. The Right, on the other hand (and quite schizophrenically), slips between this perspective and a nationalist worldview. They seek to re-instantiate the more laissez-faire ideals of the past, but they also wish to uphold the institutions that are preventing them from doing so. They want to maintain the traditional cultural values of the United States but they’re unwilling to acknowledge those values were held by a particular type of people with tendencies and qualities that cannot be universalized. What is it to be pro-American when anyone can be American? Conservatives celebrate the wins of the Left, like Brown v. Board of Education, but also idealize freedom of choice. They are happy to promote the girl boss, but they also uphold the value of family, an institution that has been nearly destroyed by Feminism. Truly, contemporary conservatives are insane. The Left tactfully takes advantage of this confused identity and uses it against the Right to bolster its base. The Liberals might want to destroy themselves, but at least they’re not as confused as some conservative who doesn't know he is destroying himself!

The Right must, I think, acknowledge that Liberalism is a failed, self-destructive ideology, or it will die. This means deconstructing or dismantling the cultural artifacts liberals have given the conservative to conserve. In effect, the Right needs to realize that it must rebel against its liberal forefathers, for they have betrayed them. The Right cannot be obligated to uphold that which destroys it. The Right’s blood will not atone for anyone’s sins. In many ways, this requires the Right to forge an identity, not in contradistinction to what the Left has done, but out of its will to destroy what the Left has wrought for it. One thing to keep in mind: The Right ought not “Ghost Dance.” It cannot look to reanimate the traditions of the past. Dave Greene has discussed this problem previously, and it is for his sake that I highlight it. The Liberals will take “Ghost Dancing” as the threat it is and do everything in their power to stop it – in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if most institutions already do their best to suppress any form of this traditional LARPing. In other words, the Right must build an identity, not consciously and rationally, by acting it out. As I’ve previously written, the Right must work through its contradictions; it cannot disembody its problems and hope to understand them. It has to live within the corpse of people seeking to destroy it, but it also cannot preserve that corpse. In part, working through this contradiction means that the Right must deny itself some of the benefits the corpse offers it. It must accept a lower standard of living to escape the cycle of dependence it has on the liberal system.

Again, I’m in no position to say what this looks like; that is why I’m reading Burnham’s and others’ works; that is why I’m personally writing about his works – to gain insights I would not otherwise have. I’m seeking to identify the contradictions and issues facing the Right and, from that research, ways through those contradictions. Perhaps there is no way out. Maybe there is. The finer details will obviously come with time. However, it’s clear now that we cannot live with or by the ideals of Liberalism.