Left vs Liberal: Another PragerU Lie

Dennis Prager continues to be one of the more interesting nuts, and entertaining liars, of our increasingly surreal political landscape. Case in point: he draws an imaginary distinction between "Liberal," and "Leftist."

Check this out:

"What's the difference between a Liberal and a Leftist?" he asks. "This question stumps most people because they think Liberal and Left are exactly the same. But they're not. In fact Liberalism and Leftism have almost nothing in common. But the Left has appropriated the word "Liberal" so effectively, almost everyone, Liberals, Leftists and Conservatives, thinks they're synonymous. But they're not!"

He says this in one of PragerU's more prominent videos, "Left or Liberal?" You can watch the video yourself, here.

What Prager seems to be trying to do is divide and conquer. By convincing moderate Liberals that they have more in common with conservatism, he believes he can win many of them over to join the "big tent" of centrist conservatism.

It might work, if Donald Trump weren't his president. But he tries desperately anyway. Observe:

"Let me offer you six examples," Prager says. "1) Race.This is probably the most obvious difference between liberal and left. The liberal position on race has always been a) the color of a person's skin is insignificant, and b) those who believe race is significant are racists! Meanwhile the Left believes the very opposite. To the Left, it's the liberal attitude toward race, it's unimportant, that is racist. That's why the University of California officially lists the statement, "There is only one race, the human race," as racist! And Liberals have always been passionately committed to racial integration, while the Left is increasingly committed to racial segregation, such as all-black dormitories, and separate black graduations at universities."

Time for a dose of reality. The phrase "There is only one race, the human race," is one I whole-heartedly stand by, and I do so as a LEFTIST, not merely a "Liberal." So right there, I am living, empirical proof that Prager is dead wrong!

But let's dig deeper: DID the University of California officially list that phrase as racist?

As it turns out, sort of yes, but not really. Dennis is referring to a news story that broke back in June of 2015, in which the University of California was condemning "microaggressions," such as speaking out against affirmative action. "The human race is the only race," was singled out as a "microaggression" because it denies “the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history.” Of course, it does no such damned thing! But the point is, saying that a phrase denies experience or history is hardly calling it "racist!" So Prager is citing a true example of political correctness run amok, but he is deliberately inaccurate regarding the citation!

NOW, we can backtrack to Prager's depiction of the "Liberal" position that "the color of a person's skin is insignificant." That is NOT the liberal position! The liberal position is that the color of a person's skin shouldn't be significant! But of course, due to the persistence of racism, it sadly is. Which means Prager's "point b)" is completely off-base. Liberals and leftists alike recognize that racism still exists, and that 1) that forces it to be significant, and 2) something must be done about it!

As opposed to Dennis Prager's approach, which is, do nothing about it. Pretend it isn't there.

In fact, saying, "the color of a person's skin is insignificant," is a deliberate attempt at erasing the lingering problems recent racism has caused, and continues to cause. It is effectively saying, "The racist party is over. So we don't need to bother cleaning up the mess it left behind!" Yeah? Bullshit! Pick up a damned broom!

All black dormitories? All black graduations? Prager is referring to "Affinity Housing" programs. They do seem to improve graduation rates among African-Americans in Universities, and yet I must admit, Prager comes close to actually having a point. Exposure to a diversity of viewpoints, people and opinions is one of the primary reasons one goes to college in the first place. Cutting out the integration between whites and blacks on campus seems like the exact opposite of learning. But Prager's argument is simply, "get rid of it!" I'd say a better idea is to research why such programs work, and try to implement the benefits without the regression into segregation. Surely, it must be possible. There are historically black colleges and universities (HBCU's) which effectively amount to black dorms and black graduations anyway. Prager said nothing against those, nor could he.

Prager goes on: "2) Capitalism. Liberals have always been pro-capitalism because liberals are committed to free enterprise, and because they know that capitalism is the only way to lift great numbers of people out of poverty. It is true that liberals want government to play a bigger role in the economy than conservatives do. But liberals never opposed capitalism, and they were never for socialism. Opposition to capitalism, and advocacy of socialism, are left-wing values."

Prager has obviously never visited my home town of Milwaukee, WI. Socialists ran the city from 1892 to 1960, and they didn't do half bad, either. Socialist Milwaukee endured the Great Depression better than any other city did, built a baseball stadium and thus attracted two major league baseball teams (the Boston Braves, who became the Milwaukee Braves, and the Seattle Pilots, who became the Milwaukee Brewers after the Braves moved to Atlanta), and built one of the best zoological gardens in the world. So Prager's insistence that Liberals have never been in favor of Socialism is again empirically false! An entire city proves him wrong!

But aside this, Prager insists that Liberals always backed Capitalism, and never Socialism, as if somehow the two were mutually exclusive. It IS possible to be both Capitalist and Socialist! One could be, like myself, convinced of the merits of a mostly Capitalist system, with a few, essential, Socialistic checks and balances put in place to prevent 1) monopoly/monopsony, 2) income inequality, and 3) environmental ruin.

Prager also admits that Liberals want government to play a bigger role in the economy. Well, no shit! What do you think a bigger economic role for the government is if not Socialist?!

Prager tries again: "3) Nationalism. Liberals believe in the nation state, whether that nation is the United States, Brazil, or France. But because the Left divides the world by class rather than by national identity, the Left has always opposed nationalism. So, while Liberals have always wanted to protect national sovereignty and borders, the Left is for open borders."

The Left is NOT for open borders! (Just listen to some of Obama's speeches regarding closed borders, if you doubt.) But it IS for accepting responsibility in generating the refugees that are fleeing here. After all, those refugees are fleeing to the U.S., because it's the U.S.'s fault!

America has been playing petty despot in Latin America for decades. U.S. anti-drug laws have kept Mexico's drug cartels flush with cash. U.S. gun laws, influenced heavily by the NRA, have kept those same Mexican cartels armed to the teeth! In fact, there is a direct correlation between guns flowing south of the border and refugees flowing north of it! If one is to build a wall for any reason, it should be to keep guns IN the U.S.! And let's not forget other ways the U.S. has fucked over Latin America. The Iran-Contra scandal, for instance. The toppling of Manuel Noriega. The C.I.A. giving weapons to anti-communist rebels in exchange for cocaine. Surely, we can take in some of the poor, huddled masses we helped to create!

But check out Prager's next whopper! "When the writers of Superman were Liberals, Superman was a proud American whose very motto was, 'Truth, Justice, and the American Way.' But that all changed a few years ago when left-wing writers took over the comic strip, and had Superman renounce his American citizenship, to be a citizen of the world. The left has a contempt for nationalism, seeing it as the road to fascism. Better that we should ALL be citizens of the world, in a world without borders."

It's true. In the 900th issue of Superman, April, 2011, the Man of Steel declared that he would go before the United Nations and renounce his U.S. Citizenship. "I'm tired of having my actions construed as instruments of U.S. policy," he says.

The part Prager downplays (probably because the man's probably never read a comic book in his life) is that every time Superman saved the day in a country outside the U.S., that country inevitably saw his act as an intercession of American military power! Naturally, that grated on Superman after a while! It was a great plot development, and took Superman into new areas to keep the comic character alive and relevant. But Prager sees it as a slight against his country.

Someone needs to remind Prager that the whole reason Superman kept repeating that he fought for "Truth, Justice and the American Way" in the first place was because conservatives like him, during the McCarthy era of "Red Scare" tactics, threatened to shut down the comic book industry in the 1950's because it supposedly "promoted communism." Almost overnight, minor comic book characters that were patriotic, and invented during the WWII era, became super-patriotic central characters! Not only did Superman repeat his "American Way" motto in every comic, but Captain America went from becoming one minor character to becoming THE Marvel Comic standard, agent of S.H.I.E.L.D., and leader of The Avengers!

Yes, Leftists have a global view of the world. But so do Liberals! We recognize that "America first" does not mean "fuck everybody else," as Trump seems to think it does. We have a responsibility to help all nations share a measure of prosperity, and that this will help America prosper, too!

But wait, there's more! "4) View of America. Liberals have always venerated America. Watch American films from the 1930's through the 1950's, and you will be watching overly patriotic, America-celebrating films, virtually all produced, directed, and acted, by liberals. Liberals were quite aware of America's imperfections, but they agree with Abraham Lincoln that America is 'the last, best hope for earth.' The left, however, believes the Left is the last, best hope for earth. And regards America as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, violent, and imperialistic."

What evidence does Prager give for any of this? Zero, of course. He can prove that Liberals venerated America by citing film history, but is there anything he can cite showing "the Left" believes that only "the Left" can save the world? Of course not! We're just meant to assume that's true.

For most of Dennis' viewers, only the die-hards will have watched the video this far, and most Liberals will have turned the video off in disgust. Perhaps that's what he was counting on.

I mean, give me a break! "The Left" doesn't see itself as the last, best hope for earth. But it does recognize the radical Right as the biggest threat to human freedom! Not only are Christians trying to subvert religious freedom by garnering undue favoritisms for themselves, the Muslims are slowly subverting democracy towards its own ends. It is odd that Christians recognize the injustice Islam is doing, while failing to recognize the exact, same tactics within itself.

And Dennis Prager is one of the biggest fools trying to subvert the government towards Judeo-Christian ends.

At this point, I almost pity Prager. But he continues, "5) Free Speech. No one has been more committed than American liberals to the statement, 'I wholly disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' But the left is leading the first wide-spread suppression of free speech in modern American history, from the Universities, to the tech companies that govern the Internet, to almost every other institution and place of work. Of course, the Left claims to only oppose 'hate speech.' But putting aside the fact that the Left deems 'hate speech' anything it differs with, protecting what you or I would consider 'hate speech,' is the entire point of free speech!"

Here, Prager has a bit of a point. Yes, there is something in the Left called "cancel culture," and it does give liberalism a real P.R. problem. Yes, there are people who take political correctness too far and endeavor to shut down all who disagree with them. But these are wing-nuts, amplified by the Internet to be seen as far more influential than they really are. For Prager to single out the extremists and label them "the Left," as if somehow you could demonize the word, is simply irresponsible. And let's not forget, the Right has its extremists, too! And Donald Trump, the man Prager dares to defend, is one of them!

"6) Western Civilization. Liberals have always championed, and sought to protect Western Civilization. Liberals celebrate the West's unique moral, philosophical, artistic, musical and literary achievements, and have taught them at virtually every University. The most revered Liberal in American political history, President Franklin Roosevelt, often cited the need to protect Western Civilization, and even Christian Civilization. Yet when President Donald Trump spoke of the need to protect Western Civilization, in a speech in Warsaw, the Left-wing media, also known as the mainstream media, denounced him. They argued that Western Civilization is no better than any other, and that Western Civilization is just a euphemism for white supremacy."

First, FDR was the most revered Liberal in American political history. It is now Barack Obama, and we all know what Prager thinks of him!

Second, of course both Liberals and Leftists want to preserve Western Civilization. But we knew what it meant when it came out of Trump's mouth! It wasn't what he said, it was the way he said it, and in the context of WHO said it! Had Barack Obama given the speech in Warsaw, it would have been understood that by "Western Civilization," he meant democratic freedoms of the West. To Trump, "Western Civilization" meant Europeans kicking Syrians out. That's why the "mainstream media" (which is NOT, by the way, actually the same thing as the "Left-wing media") correctly denounced him.

Third, Western civilization IS no better than any other in terms of heritage or history. Do Liberals and Leftists believe that democracy is superior to Arab feudalism or Chinese communism? Absolutely! But that's not the same thing as saying "Western Civilization" is somehow superior in its own right.

Fourth, Prager emphasizes how FDR praised Christian Civilization. Putting aside the fact that it was a different America in FDR's time, we must note that's the real point for Praeger! He wants to re-Christianize America. True, he is Jewish, but so was Jesus, and the Judeo-Christian bloc is very real in America.

"So, then, if Liberalism and Leftism are so different, why don't Liberals oppose the Left? In a nutshell, because they have been taught all their lives to fear the Right."

Um, no, Doofus. It is because the division between "Liberal" and "Leftist" doesn't exist except in your own sad, twisted little mind.

"But as one of the best-known liberals in America, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, said, 'As a liberal, as an American, and as a Jew, I far more fear the Left than the Right.'"

This quote is from Prager's movie "No Safe Spaces," and it illustrates something observers have noted about Dershowitz for some time: He's shifted decidedly to the right. Not entirely to the right, but he's definitely done so. When he dared defend Trump during his impeachment hearings, he was doing much more than being a Devil's advocate. He was joining the Trump cult. Heaven knows why. It's not just Trump's support of Israel. Dershowitz and every Jew would see better support for Israel from Mike Pence. No, it was something else. I don't know what it is, yet, but I'll find it. Maybe Dershowitz's new book, The Case for Liberalism in an Age of Extremism: or, Why I Left the Left But Can't Join the Right, might have some answers.

"Dear Liberals," Praeger says, "Conservatives are not your enemy. The Left is."

Okay, even if he'd made a case that "the Left" was somehow the enemy of Liberalism, how does he make the quantum leap to concluding that conservatives aren't an enemy? Is there suddenly a quota of only one enemy per political ideology? Is the enemy of one's enemy automatically a friend, even when he's an arch-enemy?

Now, let me simply say that for myself, and indeed anyone else familiar with the English language, the word "Leftist" means exactly that - everything politically to the Left of Centrism. That would include classic liberalism, modern liberalism, progressivism, and even more extreme elements like socialism and communism.

Why, oh, why, is Prager so full of himself that he thinks he can actually rewrite the definition of "Leftist" to be only the most extreme elements of Left-wing politics?

I don't know where Prager picked up the idea, but the first example I could find of "Left" and "Liberal" being two separate concepts comes from the pen of Nathan J. Robinson. In an article he wrote for Current Affairs, June 7th, 2017, he drew a distinction between "Liberals," by which he meant the Hillary Clinton camp, and "Leftists," which basically meant the Bernie Sanders camp.

Robinson did say things like, "The liberal sees the conservative patriot wearing a flag pin and says: 'A flag pin isn’t what makes you a patriot.' The leftist says: 'Patriotism is an incoherent and chauvinistic notion.' The liberal says, 'We’re the real ones who love America,' while the leftist says, 'What is America?' or 'I don’t see what it would mean to love or hate a meaningless conceptual entity.'"

And maybe that's where he got the idea. He saw the divide between Berniecrats and Hillaryites and decided to appeal to one of them. Indeed, we don't begin to see this doctrine emerge from Prager, or anyone else on the Right, until 2017, or so. Maybe it's at this point, or a bit earlier, that conservatives saw an opening. Elizabeth Bruenig published an article on Medium.com (July 17, 2017) which argued something very similar to Prager's video. By September of 2017, Prager wrote his own article. The video wasn't made until 2018, at which point he decided that this line of argument had merit, and ought to continue.

Or maybe he got the idea from Dershowitz when he made his movie, "No Safe Spaces." Who knows?

The bottom line is, there may be a divide between Liberals and Progressives, but the divide between Liberals and "the Left" does not exist.

And Dennis will find that out the hard way when he sees a unified Leftist front defeat Trump in November.

Eric

*