Prager: Leftism and liberalism have virtually nothing in common

We all have "nice" relatives and friends who always vote "D".  At American Greatness, Dennis Prager identifies the problem with "nice", and it explains a lot.  He concludes:

Specifically, why do millions of nice liberals support the Left? Leftism and liberalism have virtually nothing in common. Do liberals believe in all-black college dormitories; that America is a systemically racist country founded not in 1776, but in 1619; that Israel is the villain in the Middle East; that capitalism, the only economic system to lift billions of people out of poverty, should be replaced by socialism, whose moral record is horrific; that little children should be taught that “boys” and “girls” are subjective categories and that “nonbinary” is normal; or that defunding police reduces violent crime?

No, they don’t. Yet millions of nice liberals support those who believe those nihilistic, anti-American, anti-human ideas.

Many on the Left are neither nice nor good. But America is being destroyed by vile doctrines supported by a lot of nice people.

Postscript: After saying these things about nice people who support evil on my radio show, the Left declared that I think slave owners were nice people and that I support slavery.

One of the most popular left-wing podcasts, “The Young Turks,” spoke about me above the chyron: “Pro-Slavery Prager: Religious radio host argues slave owners were nice people.”

And the left-wing British publication, The Independent, headlined, “Far-right radio host Dennis Prager sparks outrage by saying there were ‘undoubtedly many nice slaveholders.'”

Intellectual honesty and morally sophisticated thought are not hallmarks of the Left.

Read the full column here.  (And it's not just liberals or Democrats. It's also Uniparty members with an "R" after their names.) 

# # #

Dennis Prager on “leftism” and “meaning”

image credit: drray.com

Starting off 2020 on a philosophical note. . .  Dennis Prager recently published “Greta Thunberg: A Living Explanation of the Left” at Real Clear Politics. His article considers the difference between a “liberal” and a “leftist,” and why conservative and leftists are unable to communicate with each other.  He begins:

It is not easy to understand what the left -- as opposed to liberals -- stands for. If you ask a Christian what to read to learn the basics of Christianity, you will be told the Bible. If you ask a (religious) Jew, you will be told the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. If you ask a Mormon, you will be told the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Ask a Muslim and you will be told the Quran.

But if you ask a leftist what one or two books you should read to understand leftism, every leftist will give you a different answer -- or need some time to think it over. Few, if any, will suggest Marx's "Das Kapital" because almost no leftists have read it and because you will either not finish the book or reject it as incoherent.

So, then, how is one to understand what leftism stands for?

The truth is -- it is almost impossible. What leftist in history would have ever imagined that to be a leftist, one would have to believe that men give birth or men have periods, or that it is fair to women to have to compete in sports with biological males who identify as females?

There are two primary reasons it is so difficult, if not impossible, to define leftism. One is that it ultimately stands for chaos:

-- Open borders.

-- "Non-binary" genders.

-- Nonsensical and scatological "art."

-- "Music" without tonality, melody or harmony.

-- Drag Queen Story Hour for 5-year-olds.

-- Rejection of the concept of better or worse civilizations.

-- Rejection of the concept of better or worse art.

-- Removal of Shakespeare's picture from a university English department because he was a white male.

-- The end of all use of fossil fuels -- even in transportation (as per the recent recommendation by the head of the U.N. World Meteorological Organization).

-- The dismantling of capitalism, the economic engine that has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty.

And much more.

The other major reason it is impossible to define leftism is that it is emotion-based. Leftism consists of causes that give those who otherwise lack meaning something to cling to for meaning.

Two things about Greta Thunberg, Time magazine's 2019 person of the year, embody these explanations.

Mr. Prager goes on to illustrate the emotional need for “meaning” by examining the strange case of St. Greta.  It explains why those who employ facts and logic have little chance of persuading those whose grasp of facts and logic are subordinate to their emotional needs.  But is also helps those who employ logic and facts to understand the rantings of Robert De Niro, Bette Midler, Cher, mainstream media hosts such as Don Lemon and Joy Reid, etc.  Read the rest here.

# # #