Modern liberalism is repackaged totalitarianism 
October 12, 2009 by Matthew Jarzen
On Wednesday, September 30, I participated in a debate with some student Democrats. In my closing remarks I said modern-day liberalism, or as I have been dubbing it recently — statism — is nothing more than repackaged monarchism, socialism, Marxism, fascism, Nazism, communism and totalitarianism.
click image to enlarge
Needless to say, this has caused quite a stir among the statist Democrats with whom I was debating. I’m not at all shocked by their outrage either, as it was just the reaction I knew I would get from such a bold statement.
But how could you demonize all liberals? I’m not at all demonizing your average liberal. I’m merely attacking the very heart of liberal ideology and what it really represents.
The first thing you need to do is get the notion of the liberals’ compelling need to help the less fortunate out of your mind — that is merely a cover for what a liberal really seeks to achieve: control.
Once you’ve accepted the fact that liberals aren’t out to help people but in fact seek to control them, cease referring to them as liberals and instead start calling them by the mechanism they use to achieve control over human beings.
They are statists because they favor the supremacy of the state and approve of coercive governmental force to achieve their ends.
Now you have them down to their very base — the very core of their ideology.
When I made the remark that modern liberalism is merely a repackaged version of every burned out, defeated, totalitarian ideology of the past, I wasn’t stretching the truth but simply drawing from history.
As I said, liberal statism is all about the control of human beings. It is all about amassing as much central power as possible while at the same time denying freedom and liberty to others.
Again, I let history be my judge. For much of history, emperors, kings, Caesars or czars headed most of the world’s civilizations. These tyrants had to restrict the freedoms of their subjects to secure power for themselves.
This afforded those in power complete control of their people. It was slavery without the shackles on the hands and feet of subjects.
The American Revolution set in place a foundation for the spread of freedom and liberty and monarchism rapidly began to fall. Ancient monarchists had to reinvent their ideology without giving up control.
As monarchism fell throughout much of the world, new ideologies of human control emerged — socialism and Marxism.
These ideologies only differed from monarchism because they changed the location of the power. Instead of being controlled by a singular entity, people were now controlled by other groups of people.
From those ideologies arose communism: a more extreme version of Marxism that uses the same principles. In the name of helping the people, it oppressed and controlled them.
Government controlled every aspect of the peoples’ lives in the name of helping them. Government controlled the schools in the name of educating children.
Government forcibly took from those who had enough and gave to those who did not, redistributing wealth. Government controlled the health of the people, deciding who should receive care and who should receive the medicine.
Sound familiar?
The first great experiment was in Russia and that experiment lasted 70 years at the cost of 80 million lives.
During the 1920s and 1930s, another competitor came to the ideological battle for control of humans — fascism. Fascism started in Italy but matured in Germany where it transformed into Nazism. Nazism was what the Germans called fascism, and under Adolf Hitler, it was formally called the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Wow, that just reeks of conservatism, huh? Especially the “socialist” and “workers” part.
The only difference between fascism and German Nazism was the racial reengineering aspect. But what brings all these defeated ideologies together is what their intended goal actually was: Establish control over human beings through social reengineering.
But the birth of the U.S. proved that humans have a yearning for freedom and liberty. In America, the same burnt out monarchists and socialists reinvented themselves as well.
While others abroad created the harsh tyrannies that ushered in massacres, the totalitarians here in the U.S. had to take a different approach.
Americans would never accept a harsh tyranny, so they had to create a soft tyranny. A tyranny that could gradually get put into place over time and work to control one group of people after another.
Such was the birth of modern-day liberal statism. It’s totalitarianism with a smiley face. The Democratic Party has been the main catalyst for this brand of statism, though for a time Republicans did their fare share of damage as well.
Just look at all the liberal “help the people” policies. Government controls welfare, social security, Medicare, environmental policies, income taxes, labor unions and much more.
All these policies have one thing in common — in order for them to succeed the coercive force of government is necessary.
All these programs make the people dependent on the government for survival. Once these people have given up their freedom to the statists’ promise of security, the statist has achieved their goal of control.
I merely have to point to the groups who have forsaken their freedom for the statist promise: minorities.
If the statists who debated me disagree with this article, I’m more than happy to sit down and debate it again. I’m waiting for their answer.
Well done Matthew, this states the situation quite nicely.
I’m nominating you for the Nobel Peace Prize by the way, I think you deserve it.
Though I disagree with some of the words you use, I have to agree with almost everything you said. An example in the current healthcare which really shows Democrats for what they really are. In the bill passed by the democrats in the Senate, the Democrats will force people to buy insurance (even and especially against their will) for the sake of the “common good.”
Instead of trying to provide “carrots” (as they say on capitol hill) to entice or persuade people to buy insurance (such as lowering the cost, providing lower premiums for living healthily, allowing the use of health care accounts in combination with high deductible accounts or providing pools for people to buy health care in mass [this is included in the Dems plan to a certain extent]), Dems decide to use “sticks” or penalties to force people. Last time I check the fee was over $1,000 per year per family if you don’t buy insurance, whether you actually use the health care system or not.
Another Democratic example is the proposed fat tax (fast food tax, soda tax, etc.). This tax will tax all fatty foods to make them more expensive, forcing people to eat them less.
A conservative would take on the same problem by giving people benefits (such as lower health care premiums) if they take care of themselves, thus allowing people to choose whether they want to eat less junk food (and spend less money on health care insurance) or not.
A final example is cap and trade legislation. Instead of using tax credits and pushing down the price of “green” energy the government will tax energy producers billions of dollars and force them to produce green energy. This cost will then be passed on to the average consumer who will be forced to use less energy as they don’t have enough money to pay for the new higher energy costs.
A conservative would put money into tax credits and into research so that we could get “green” energy down in price enough that it can compete with coal power. We could also research other ways to transition our energy use such as cars using electricity and not gasoline. Coal power costs an average of around 5 cents per Kilowatt/Hour. Solar costs an average of 25 cents per Kilowatt/Hour. (Solar is about 4.5 times more expensive than coal). http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour. (This website contains costs of other type of power but I chose to compare solar and coal because coal is our main source of energy here in Nevada and solar seems to be touted as its replacement, though other energy sources can be used)
Or we could turn to other energies that are already available at a low cost such as geothermal or nuclear which could promote our energy independence.
Couldn’t agree more.
How can you start this off with, “I’m not at all demonizing your average liberal” and then do exactly that?
GO READ SOME HISTORY. Use some facts in your writings and stop grouping everyone that has a leaning towards the Democrats together with Socialists, Progressives, Communists, Nazis etc. etc. etc…. All of those groups are different and have distinct ideas/ideologies/beliefs. Just because we do not agree with you does not mean we hate America, does not mean we seek to control, and does not mean we suscribe to even half of the garbage you wrote in this article.
If you want to sit down and debate someone, here I am; you know how to reach me but don’t you dare come without knowing the facts.
Thank God for Matthew. He is a voice crying out in the desert.! The truth bothers the Democrats / Liberals because their history of deciet and lies is called out. Exactly what have the Democrats done for Blacks in the last 50 or 60 years? ZIP, NADA, NOTHING! They were against the Civil Rights Act and Johnson had to depend on the Republicans to get the law passed. Oh those evil Republicans. One of their stars, Robert Byrd was a KKK recruiter. WOW! What the Democrats have done is continually promise the blacks, vote for us and we will give you something for free. Now they are working the same ploy with the Hispanics and other minorities.
Clark
Hi Destiny,
You are in luck because I got a minor in History, so I have read a ton of it (unless you are a history major or a voracious history reader then I have likely even read more than you) I agree that those groups you mentioned are not the same (hence the reason they are separate groups). I think the point Matthew was making is that those groups have a similar type of governance which is based on controlling the masses and forcing the masses to do things. If you look at the groups, I would think you could see the common theme in all of their types of governance, though we could discuss for hours the specific differences between the various groups.
Just in case you don’t know what I’m talking about, you can look at my previous post in which I describe several current Democratic plans and how they attempt to control the average citizen and force them to do something. I think these examples pretty much show how the Democrats want to govern. I would also like to note that Matthew explicitly states that he isn’t talking about people but about ideology. (“But how could you demonize all liberals? I’m not at all demonizing your average liberal. I’m merely attacking the very heart of liberal ideology and what it really represents.”)
Clark-
Just because the Democrats and Republicans did different things at different points in history, does not mean that a person can ignore the historical and ideological shifts between the parties, socially and economically. The reasoning “Democrats” used for slavery, before abolition, was their states’ rights to slavery and the dislike of a large government “controlling” them and telling them what to do, which is the same ideology used in the arguments against gay marriage and other social issues today; the parties have switched.
How can the Republican Party be good for minorities when they constantly deny racism and classism as serious barriers toward success and equality in this country today? When they refuse to acknowledge the serious social problems that plague minorities in this country? and effective ways of solving them? When they attribute the pay gap between women and minorities and white men to a lack of hard work and dedication? When their answers for these problems are “if you work hard enough, you can do anything and you can be successful”.. “pick yourself up by your bootstraps”. Does that mean that the extreme gaps in pay indicate a lack of hard work on the part of women and minorities and that white men, are by nature, just harder workers than women and other minorities? Instead of recognizing the social inequalities in our country and the need for policies that counter these inequities, the Republican party blames it on minority individuals’ lack of hard work and desire to be successful. So why would you ever think that minorities would want to side with Republicans?
David-
I won’t pretend to have any clue how much history you know, what I do know is what I know and what Matthew either doesn’t know or ignores, in debate and in his writing.
I would disagree that all of these groups share the desire to control and force the masses and I see the specific differences between these groups and their ideologies as very important to the overall success and goodness/failure and badness of these groups. For example, one cannot call a liberal a communist because liberalism, as it is today is a response to communism. While liberals agree/d that some communist ideas sound/ed good, they argue/d that capitalism was essential to a successful government and economy as opposed to the economic principles of communism, which is shown in the ideologies of the Democratic Party today.
And you’re right, Matthew does explicitly state that he is talking ideology rather than people but then fails to execute his writing in that manner. His entire article sets out to show readers that liberal ideology (along with Democrats, socialism, and communisn, and totalitarianism, etc etc) is actually statist and then calls all of us so-called statists out to come debate him:
“Once these people have given up their freedom to the statists’ promise of security, the statist has achieved their goal of control.”
“If the statists who debated me disagree with this article, I’m more than happy to sit down and debate it again. I’m waiting for their answer.”
That’s a pretty obvious conection of ideas that “demonize” us liberals. Look, I don’t have a problem if he wants to do that, fine, but he shouldn’t pretend that that is not what he is doing.
Hi Destiny,
Thanks for responding. I agree that you can’t call a liberal a communist or a fascist. As those are all distinct ideologies with distinct ways of operating. What I am saying is that the Democratic Party is for more government control while maintaining a type of capitalism. I’m not sure how the Democratic Party can be in response to communism but I’ve take you at your word.
I think Matthew is using hyperbole to point out the Democrats desire for more government control and is using those other political systems as a means to that end. You make a good point, at times in his article he does seem to talk directly to Democrats instead of about their ideology.
Finally, pardon me for adding my two cents to your conversation with Clark but I would think that you would know about the large advantages minorities have over the white males. Affirmative action requires schools to take a minority before a white person regardless of grades, government contracts are set aside for minority companies, government jobs (and most corporate jobs) are required to give a certain number of jobs to minorities and there are tens of thousands of scholarships available to minorities but when was the last time you saw a scholarship for a white person? I personally think a lot of the difference is what jobs the various races go into. When I hear you speak it seems like you want to blame it on someone else and not let minorities take responsibility. Can you not see that any of it is due to the minorities’ job selection, attitudes, etc.? Do you think that the gap between college placement scores and scholastic achievement between whites and minorities is due to white advantages? Please explain these to me.
Yes, it is easier to wait for someone to give you a handout but if you want to be richer then work harder. I use myself as an example. My family was really poor growing up (9 people in my family) and yet I worked full time and went to college and now I am working full time and going through law school which sucks but I am doing it so I don’t end up like my family did when I was younger.
Also last time I checked, there was no pay difference between men and women. That $0.75 women earn to every dollar that a man earns is baloney. It means that if you add up all the women’s salaries in the US and all the men’s salaries, then the men are earning more. It does not mean that men are paid more for the same job as women. This difference has much to do with women’s occupational choices, time in the workforce and career orientation.
David,
First, I’m glad that you agree that these terms that Matthew uses so interchangeably are not so interchangeable. I find his use of hyperbole to exaggerate the Democrats’ beliefs about the role of government grossly inaccurate and dangerous. Grouping all of these groups together because of slight similarities would be somewhat the equivalent to saying that conservatism is repackaged anarchy because of their fear and hatred of the government. Now we obviously know that conservatives believe the government is a necessary evil, and do not suggest the removal of all government but that’s the same “specific differences” on the other end between the other groups that Matthew lumps together in order to demonize the opposite side. Instead of using hyperbole, perhaps he should say exactly what it is, without just yelling out words and groups that he knows will put fear into people of a communist, fascist, socialist, etc takeover.
Secondly, I’d like to point out that I did not say Democrats are a direct response to communism, what I said was today’s liberalism (socially liberal capitalists) and the ideologies of that group are a response to communism. Because the Democratic Party is largely made up of liberals, by default they are a response.
I will get to your last point later, I have to run to class.
This article is full of unsubstantiated generalities and ahistorical comments — for example, the American Revolution did NOT cause the rapid collapse of monarchism in europe; the French Revolution quickly died out and was replaced by a new monarchy in the form of Napoleon Bonaparte, and Germany was still technically ruled by a king (kaisar Wilhelm II) as late as 1918.
Comparing modern liberalism to facism is ridiculous, and you could just as easily say the same thing about conservatism if your only definition of facism is “seeking to expand goverment power.” Who has voted for more draconian laws with extremely harsh sentences, liberals or conservatives?
Destiny,
I agree with your first point. Hyperbole should not be used if you want an accurate debate (on either side).
I still don’t really understand why you are calling liberalism a response to communism. Are you saying that it is the opposite of communism? Are you saying that liberals saw that communism doesn’t work and so modern liberalism is thier a improvement on communism? Thank you for your explanation in advance.
I await your further response.
Joe,
The American Revolution did set a foundation for the fall of absolute monarchies and it did lead other countries to change their political power structures to something more like democracy.
The German Emperor that you cited, Wilhelm II, was not an absolute monarch but had a parliamentary government and although he had power, he still had to deal with the parliament to do most things. The fact that the French revolution did not last does not mean that it did not change the way the French were doing things politically. France began to use a constitution during the revolution and has continued since then. Napoleon took power as the emperor under the constitution and later when Napoleon was captured and power turned over to the King of France, the King was no longer an absolute monarch but a constitutional monarch with much lesser powers. I think Matthew’s points are pretty much on.
Now, as noted above liberalism and communism are not the same thing as I have noted in the past. That connection is only use per hyperbole to show the tendency of pushing too much power into the government’s hand, which is what the current liberal party (Democrats) seem to be doing.
You stated “Who has voted for more draconian laws with extremely harsh sentences, liberals or conservatives?” If you are asking who has voted for more punish for crimes, then it would be conservatives. Liberals seem to want to lessen punishments for criminals (ex. see liberals support for Roman Polanski who anally raped a 13 year old girl after he drugged her) or to increase punishment if it serves their purposes (ex. Hate crimes laws adding additional punishments against someone if they could possibly have done it out of hatred towards gays, bisexuals and transgender people). I actually don’t know of any draconian punishments in the US as they are illegal under the eighth amendment.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/29/hollywoods-selective-values-where-is-the-liberal-outrage/
My eyes glaze over whenever I see someone equate liberalism as synonymous with the Democratic party.
And further, the fact that Matthew Jarzen isn’t a liberal, and is in no place to judge the contemporary problems of the movement should dispel readers expectations of fidelity right off the bat.
As an *actual* liberal, and one that isn’t defined by his membership to a party, I’m in complete solidarity with my friends and fellow Americans who are disbarred from living a productive life because of genetic deficiencies and ailments that they are coerced to live with, from both birth and the unjust system of for-profit medication.
Does this make me a statist because I don’t think poor people should be more or less bound by corporate mandates on insurance? I don’t think so.
Thomas Paine, one of the biggest liberals of past ages, who supported two Revolutions and catalyzed the American one, was an open advocate of free education, progressive taxation, welfare and an estate tax to fund a government retirement pension. Was he a “modern liberal fascist?”
The very insinuation is sinister, and luckily to anyone who has some respect for intellectual honesty and historical accuracy: completely ignorable in the wider realm of political discussion in America.