Until a short while ago I had never even heard of Evan Sayet, nor had I been aware that on March 5, 2007, before the Heritage Foundation, he had given one of the most profound and enlightening lectures ever spoken on contemporary Liberalism. Quite literally, in about 3/4 of an hour, he explains everything one needs to know about the Liberal philosophy and mindset, shedding light on the myriad of inexplicable initiatives, attitudes, and deeds of the American Left (though it applies to Lefties throughout the world).
Born a New York (Liberal) Jew, Mr. Sayet came to realize the stunning hate and contempt in which his comrades held the U.S. of A. when, after the bombing of the WTC and Pentagon in 2001, they agreed amongst themselves, with virtual unanimity, that America "deserved" this attack. But I digress...
With sinful brevity I will try to summarize what he says.
The ultimate sin for American liberals is the sin of "judgmentalism." That is to say, one must NEVER deem one person, philosophy, attitude, or course of behavior to be better than, or worse than, any other. Everything is equal, and one must always remain neutral.
Consider the implications of this attitude.
Gay marriage? Who am I to say that one lifestyle is better or worse than any other? That would be judgmental of me. Of course people of the same gender should be given the same considerations and benefits of people in male-female relationships.
The Welfare State? One must NEVER say or imply that a certain lifestyle leads to poverty, crime, substance abuse, HS dropouts, chronic unemployment, and so on. To say that would mean that one lifestyle is "worse" than another, and that would be judgmental.
Why will Liberal news media never characterize people as "terrorists"? Because that implies that they are evil, which would be judgmental. Why can neither the MSM nor any Liberal politician acknowledge that Islam is the greatest threat to world peace? The evidence is overwhelming. 90% of all wars of the past 50 years have been either entirely or largely a matter of one group of Muslims attempting to kill or oppress some country or group outside their particular piece of Islam.
And heaven forbid that a Liberal ever acknowledge anything beneficial that arose out of Christianity. Hospitals, schools, orphanages, immunizations, feeding the hungry, clothing the poor? Forget about it. Means nothing. Because to acknowledge anything good would be to imply that other religious and philosophies are not AS good.
A corollary is that everyone and everything is equal, and must be dealt with neutrally. People rioting in the streets? Looting? Setting fire to businesses? There is nothing "wrong" with that; one MUST presume that ANYONE in the same circumstances would do the same. To suppose otherwise would mean that those people are "bad," and there is no good or bad.
Sayet illustrates the point with coverage of a theoretical football game where one team wins 83-3. To an objective journalist, the winning team proved that it was the better team. But the Liberal, "neutral" journalist sees it quite differently. Both teams are presumed to be "equal," so the story line is trying to explain why, with two equal teams, the result was so lopsided. The winning team must have cheated.
"Income inequality" anyone? If all people are equally meritorious, and if one group of the population ends up with more income/wealth than another group, then it MUST have occurred through some sort of deviousness, theft, or interference. It couldn't POSSIBLY have been the normal and natural result of hard work, intelligent effort, or well-calculated risk-taking. Therefore "income inequality" is a problem requiring a (government) solution. The same philosophy motivates the move to a higher minimum wage. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that certain people are incapable or unwilling to EARN a living wage; that would mean that they were inferior to their economic betters.
It is all so clear to me now.
Born a New York (Liberal) Jew, Mr. Sayet came to realize the stunning hate and contempt in which his comrades held the U.S. of A. when, after the bombing of the WTC and Pentagon in 2001, they agreed amongst themselves, with virtual unanimity, that America "deserved" this attack. But I digress...
With sinful brevity I will try to summarize what he says.
The ultimate sin for American liberals is the sin of "judgmentalism." That is to say, one must NEVER deem one person, philosophy, attitude, or course of behavior to be better than, or worse than, any other. Everything is equal, and one must always remain neutral.
Consider the implications of this attitude.
Gay marriage? Who am I to say that one lifestyle is better or worse than any other? That would be judgmental of me. Of course people of the same gender should be given the same considerations and benefits of people in male-female relationships.
The Welfare State? One must NEVER say or imply that a certain lifestyle leads to poverty, crime, substance abuse, HS dropouts, chronic unemployment, and so on. To say that would mean that one lifestyle is "worse" than another, and that would be judgmental.
Why will Liberal news media never characterize people as "terrorists"? Because that implies that they are evil, which would be judgmental. Why can neither the MSM nor any Liberal politician acknowledge that Islam is the greatest threat to world peace? The evidence is overwhelming. 90% of all wars of the past 50 years have been either entirely or largely a matter of one group of Muslims attempting to kill or oppress some country or group outside their particular piece of Islam.
And heaven forbid that a Liberal ever acknowledge anything beneficial that arose out of Christianity. Hospitals, schools, orphanages, immunizations, feeding the hungry, clothing the poor? Forget about it. Means nothing. Because to acknowledge anything good would be to imply that other religious and philosophies are not AS good.
A corollary is that everyone and everything is equal, and must be dealt with neutrally. People rioting in the streets? Looting? Setting fire to businesses? There is nothing "wrong" with that; one MUST presume that ANYONE in the same circumstances would do the same. To suppose otherwise would mean that those people are "bad," and there is no good or bad.
Sayet illustrates the point with coverage of a theoretical football game where one team wins 83-3. To an objective journalist, the winning team proved that it was the better team. But the Liberal, "neutral" journalist sees it quite differently. Both teams are presumed to be "equal," so the story line is trying to explain why, with two equal teams, the result was so lopsided. The winning team must have cheated.
"Income inequality" anyone? If all people are equally meritorious, and if one group of the population ends up with more income/wealth than another group, then it MUST have occurred through some sort of deviousness, theft, or interference. It couldn't POSSIBLY have been the normal and natural result of hard work, intelligent effort, or well-calculated risk-taking. Therefore "income inequality" is a problem requiring a (government) solution. The same philosophy motivates the move to a higher minimum wage. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that certain people are incapable or unwilling to EARN a living wage; that would mean that they were inferior to their economic betters.
It is all so clear to me now.
.................. 
