The New Left's Appeal to Authority

Wretchard posts another fascinating piece, this time on the theory that the Left is having trouble in the health care debate partly "because they’ve got all the flagship institutions. And that’s a liability."

The Right is responding as an essentially leaderless networked opposition, something along the lines of the networked organization of Al Queda. It is fascinating to me to see the revolutionary lefties who went from the streets in the 60s to positions of power in academia and elsewhere reverse their previous battle cry, "Question Authority". Now that they're in power, it's "Appeal to Authority". This is not the only way that "liberalism" has been turned on its head in the last 40 years or so.

"The Republican leadership was in fact the first victim of the revolt from below. Only after the “5th generation” war had ripped through the comfortable assumptions of business as usual did it break out to face the left. To think that the current unrest is the creation of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck would be to make a fundamental mistake. Those figures are simply its beneficiaries — and its beneficiaries by accident. If Haque really wants to fight 5G, I would like to propose a different set of rules.

1. Listen to the people;

2. Believe that truth is something to be discovered in dialogue with the public; that the debate is never “over” simply because the great and good say so;

3. Consider it possible that all men, including small businessmen, plumbers, rubes from Alaska, cleaning women who say their prayers at mealtimes — are in some fundamental way the equal of graduates of Harvard Law School and know as much about life and death as Dr. Zeke Emmanuel;

4. Accept that facts do matter because reality is authored by something larger than government, greater than the Congress and more lasting than any administration;

5. That all efforts to “attack the base” will ultimately fail because a government by the people, of the people and for the people will never perish from the earth; and

6. Realize that these precepts are obvious on the face of it though there are none so blind as they who will not see.

The comment thread also includes some interesting thoughts. This post and its comment thread is an example of classic philosophical blogging. You might like to spend some time thinking about the points various commenters, like "WWS" or "Marsh Arab", are making. Wretchard often posts in the comment thread also.

One interesting comment: 12. Peter Boston

Here’s a cut from Kennedy’s speech at the 1980 Convention. It is considered to be his finest speech even some 29 years later because it encapsulates the scope of modern liberalism.

A fair prosperity and a just society are within our vision and our grasp, and we do not have every answer. There are questions not yet asked, waiting for us in the recesses of the future. But of this much we can be certain because it is the lesson of all of our history: Together a President and the people can make a difference. I have found that faith still alive wherever I have traveled across this land. So let us reject the counsel of retreat and the call to reaction. Let us go forward in the knowledge that history only helps those who help themselves.

There will be setbacks and sacrifices in the years ahead; but I am convinced that we as a people are ready to give something back to our country in return for all it has given to us.

Let this — Let this be our commitment: Whatever sacrifices must be made will be shared and shared fairly. And let this be our confidence: At the end of our journey and always before us shines that ideal of liberty and justice for all.

The speech has all the deep appeal of the “fair and just society” that drives Obama and the Progressives today, as it has for more than 100 years.

I may be beginning to understand why Progressivism (modern liberlism if you would) which starts from lofty ideals always ends up making a greater number of people . . . miserable, and why Joe Sixpack is rejecting the message.

I think there are two reasons. One is that Progressivism equates good intentions, even truly noble intentions at times, with Wisdom but without explanation. The other is that Progressivism uses politics to instruct human nature. . . .

Fairness and justice are human concepts. We can attempt to discern a meaning for them from reason, from experience, or from revelation but so far as I know nobody has ever come up with one definition that applies to all men for all time. Why are fairness and justice within the grasp and vision of only the Progressives?

The Declaration of Independence intended that the discovery of the meaning of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” would be a private journey unhindered by a government that demanded fidelity to any one particular religious, theological or philosophical doctrine. This is the true meaning of American Exceptionalism. Nothing like this had ever happened before.

By its very nature, because of the confidence that it has already secured Wisdom, Progressivism blocks individuals from pursuing their own pathway and puts them on the state built road to Good. There is no need to waste time and resources wandering around looking for the Light when it has already been found. That is the beginning of tyranny, and Americans are getting the message. (Emphasis mine.)

Related.

Some clear thinking in the a speech by a congressman.