Slavery, Racism, Sexism, Communism, Nationalism

Submitted by Robert (United States), Oct 18, 2018 at 23:25

Dear Daniel Pipes,

I [urge you] to abandon the ideological distinction between Conservatives and Liberals. These terms merely distinguish the Right from the Left, the seating within the Assembly during the French Revolution and only expresses support for particular policies in historical time of a County. To really know what's going on in the History of Europe and the United State one needs to take a more Global View, as opposed to a Local View.

You cite the 1600s as the Birth of Liberalism. But at that time there was not even a single British Colony in New England. So you must mean Europe - and the Time of the Enlightenment. But that was not what you call "liberalism" because the French Revolution also hadn't occurred. What really happened back then was the Birth of the Secular World; it was the ultimate separation of Church and State. So what you call Liberalism, is in fact an objection to those Liberties which Secular Freedom from "your" cherished BIBLE entails.

In the United States, beginning in gestation as 13 Colonies, the phenomena of Slavery emerged at the same time as it was vanishing as Evil. Now when by 1865 Slavery was destroyed by the bloody Civil War, American Racism was established to keep the "inferior" races "separate" (to put it mildly). This Racism took another form in Europe, where there were no "Negroes" of any significant number. Rather, the "Other Race" was composed by Jews. And for that Hitler orchestrated the "Final Solution," which only ended in 1945, when Hitler committed suicide. But besides that Conclusion, Communism emerged as the ideology of the universal Working Class with Religion as an "Opiate of the Masses." That was the ideology of Eastern Europe under Soviet Domination; and as Marx died in 1883, those were the views from which the workers of the world needed to be freed. So what happens when Hungary, or Russia, are liberated from the chains of this Communism? Nationalism re-emerges. Hungary discovers its "glorious" past, before its Communist subversion.

Western Europe, on the other hand, unites into the European Union, where all countries share in their Enlightenment Inheritance, Christianity and Secularism, 2 separate parts of European life, with each member state composing the "United States of Europe."

But then, the Muslim Migrations into Europe reach Critical Mass.

What binds the West together, is not only anti-Racism, but also the discovery of the Rights of Women, oppressed even during the Enlightenment. And at the root of this oppression is a more general oppression based on Sexuality. Not only Gender discrimination is ruled illegal, but also Sexual Orientation - as if with whom one wishes to go to bed, or marry is the business of an outside third individual.

So your "Conservatism" really entails an objection to LIBERTY, or FREEDOM, of the Individual. Your recourse to Tradition is really going back to the Bible and desire to impose its restrictions, but without Citation. That is what you, unconsciously mean by Conservatism. Everything that is found abhorrent in American Liberty protected by our Bill of Rights enumerated in our constitution as 10 afterthoughts in 1791.

Unwittingly, you only use the term "Conservative" because you are constitutionally prohibited from referencing the Bible, which is a particular body of religious beliefs.

There are other objections that Conservatives voiced, of course, which weren't founded explicitly in the bible. For example, employees forming union, or demanding an 8 hour day, were viewed, by Conservatives as impinging on the right of Property, as Conspiracies against Contract Rights. The Strike, particularly, was viewed as illegal damage to the property rights of the American employer.

One of our greatest Presidents was FDR. His efforts to take us out of the Depression following the Crash of 1929 was viewed, Conservatively, as violating American Free Enterprise, which entailed Lessee Fair Capitalism.

I do not deny that much falls under the rubric of Liberalism that's unsound. I merely maintain that the distinction is merely a cover for opposition. However, generally, I'd rather be a Liberal than a Conservative. The reason for that should be obvious; One needs change to make something better; but maintaining what's bad requires conserving it. Opposition to Progress is a greater danger to humanity than the effort to fix what isn't broken. Liberals want Liberty; Conservatives wish to maintain Oppression under the falsely comforting guise of Tradition. Conservatives: a woman's place is in the home, homosexuals should stay in the closet, "Negroes" are "inferiors," "Jews killed Christ." Every oppressive policy was at some point in history embodied traditional which the Conservative wished to preserve while the Liberal wished it abolish, American Slavery being perhaps the most poignant example.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".