What Liberalism Is (Or has Become)

What Liberalism Is (Or has Become)

By John Mallon

As we swing into the election season it might be useful to have an updated definition of "Liberalism." In modern Western culture liberalism has moved from being an ideology to being an ersatz religion, with rules dogmas and taboos all its own, but it is a religion without a god, so the rules are changeable according to political expediency. As such it has all the frightening potential to became an all out tyranny as did the pagan ersatz religion of National Socialism in Germany in the 1930s and the anti-religion of Communism throughout the 20th century.

I did not choose the word "ersatz" casually to sound clever and intellectual. I chose it deliberately, and even looked it up to be sure it was the precise word. Dictionary.com defined it thus: "Being an imitation or a substitute, usually an inferior one; artificial: ersatz coffee made mostly of chicory. See Synonyms at artificial." It continued saying, "German, replacement, from ersetzen, to replace, from Old High German irsezzan"

It represents in many cases a virtual apostasy which enables a gradual migration from, say, Catholicism, to the paganism of modern liberalism, which seemingly allows one to claim to be Catholic by culture and upbringing yet not actually believing as a Catholic, having exchanged the immutable teachings of Catholicism for the fluid adjust-as-you-go presumptions of liberalism. In the First Chapter of the Book of Romans St. Paul calls it "having exchanged the truth about God for a lie" (Rom. 1:23) In fact, for a perfect Christian interpretation of the modern evening news one may read Romans 1:18-32. There is nothing new under the sun. 

I'm told that in Canada if you quote this passage of Scripture you can be arrested for "hate speech." Tyranny anyone?  Free speech anyone? Freedom of religion anyone? O Canada.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding in the land that Christianity is primarily about morality—which the liberal faithful interpret as a violation of human rights or, "oppression.". It is not. Christianity is primarily about the truth of reality as established by the Creator of reality. Morality is discerned from that objective truth as much for our protection as anything else. We live in a generation that has enshrined rebellion but rebellion against truth can have deadly results. One may rebel against the cold hard truth of a red traffic light but in so doing one runs the high risk of killing oneself and others. It matters little if a group of people establishes a consensus that they have a "right" to run red lights. If that "right" were to be enshrined in law to appease the special interest group of red-light-runners the purpose of law would defeat itself, become self-contradictory and anarchy would ensue—ripe grounds for tyranny.

Modern liberalism has several presuppositions-turned dogmas of its own. One of which is that without legal abortion women are simply doomed. Forget the civilizing influence authentic religion imposes on men with regard to women—this is viewed as "patronizing." Feminist will blame "patriarchal" religion which for the predatory culture which impregnates women and throws them to the dogs, thus in need of available abortion. But in fact, it is the abandonment of authentic religion, and traditional sexual morality that created this hostile environment towards women. Nevertheless, they persist in seeing traditional sexual morality as restrictive of their rights. It is a cold world where "rights" are the highest good. Love seeks surrender, self abandonment, self-donation. Yet, if modern feminism manifests anything it is a tragic unfamiliarity with love.

So abortion is the fundamental lynch pin of modern liberalism, the sacrament of the ersatz religion stark in its fundamental "no" to the God of life. This ersatz sacrament is undergirded by the even more subtle "no" manifest in contraception. Both represent a fundamental despair of life and love. And they are the sine qua non of modern liberalism. Both involve the tacit reduction of the great ratification of self-donation in marriage to a self-oriented recreational activity, or worse, a drug to distract from the ennui and pain of life. As Saint Thomas Aquinas said, "Man cannot live with out joy. When deprived of spiritual joy he turns to carnal pleasures."

In our time this joyless living has lead to the liberal mandate of "sexual and reproductive rights." Rights become necessary when love is sufficiently out of the picture and sexual activity becomes a loveless enterprise. To apply all this to the current election season we are reminded of the words of Flannery O'Connor, "When you govern by tenderness, tenderness leads to the gas chamber." The word "tenderness" in her time would be rendered "compassion" in today's parlance, and compassion has been the reason offered for the 40 million plus children exterminated in the womb since Roe v. Wade. Modern liberals are guilty of "locationism." That is, it is permissible to kill a child so long as it is in the womb, but should in move the necessary amount of inches to emerge from the womb it is not. But they are working on that.

On the wider scale, in terms of public policy world wide, is the vociferous and irrational promotion of "population control" whose proponents have inserted themselves into every level of the United Nations. The most basic question when it comes to enforcement of population control, as with the enforcement of all tyrannical ideologies, is who decides who is permitted—or worthy of—life. Who decides who gets to be born?

Without moral absolutes this presents a problem for liberalism. With so little to go on morally they often irrationally attack their opponents with charges of "racism" with the assumption that liberals are the only tolerant people around. But as liberals use the term there is no clear qualification of what defines intolerance other than they think they know it when they see it. 

A person of authentic religious faith knows that tolerance is qualified by what is being tolerated. For example it is good to be tolerant of human beings and legitimate differences between them but it is not good to tolerate evil. Liberal ideologues will question who defines evil, but if they expect an answer they saw off the branch on which they are sitting, by acknowledging that evil does need to be defined by some reliable authority or source. It is not enough to simply call your opponents "fascists" and let it go at that. One must make the case.

But few things today hold greater potential for tyranny than population control which liberals generally embrace, despite its obvious and genuinely racist implications. 

Thankfully, the Bush administration has clamped down on this evil agenda being promoted through the UN, but with a Democrat in the White House that will change, reverting to the horrors of the Clinton administration where officers of Planned Parenthood sat on US delegations to UN conferences. A vote for liberals is also a vote to further the ongoing sexualization of Children. 

In their push for "sexual and reproductive rights" at the UN, these rights are emphatically specified as extending to adolescents which the UN defines as beginning at age 10. In fact, in 1999 the German European Union delegate suggested this age should be lowered to include boys and girls as young as six. (Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam), Friday Fax, March 12, 1999 Volume 2, Number 20; http://www.c-fam.org/FAX/fax_1999/faxv2n20.html). 

This is the thinking of liberal ideologues, and the thinking of the elites of post-Christian Europe, such as one finds in high posts of international agencies and non-governmental organizations. It is good to keep this in mind when John Kerry speaks of restoring our international standing in the world. 

Liberal secular humanism, the ersatz religion of the elites of this world crosses national boundaries, and in fact, wants to do away with them. Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state of the Clinton administration from 1994 to 2001, as advanced the notion of doing away with national sovereignty.

Talbott wrote: "Here is one optimist's reason for believing unity will prevail over disunity, integration over disintegration. In fact, I'll bet that within the next hundred years (I'm giving the world time for setbacks and myself time to be out of the betting game, just in case I lose this one), nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century "citizen of the world," will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st century. ("The Birth of the Global Nation," Time Magazine, July 20, 1992)