The Left Hasn’t Produced a Good Idea in a VERY Long time!

It’s a simple truth: no good thinking has come from the political Left for a very long time. In a macro sense, that “very long time” is: more than a century.

Why? Simple: the Left’s main philosophical thrust for many generations has been: increase the size, scope, reach and power of the central government. Or: the same awful, reactionary, top-down, people-crushing style of governance in place around the world nearly forever… until, that is, America came along and showed everyone a far, far better way.

For the Right, for a long time, the principal automating idea has been to decrease the power of the central government and increase that of the individual.

There are times when each mode of thinking is correct. Again, in a macro sense, the time when the Left’s animating focus is correct is, self-evidently, when the central government has not enough power to accomplish the functions it is best suited to accomplish, and that it should take on. Those times are very rare indeed, and have nearly never been in place in the world except in the most unusual circumstances. The governing principle of the Right has long been, the correct one. So why has the governing principle of the left been by far the dominant political paradigm for millennia?

The animating principle of the political Right has served as both a curative for bad governing throughout history and as a model for the best overall governing notion: Leave the people alone to live their lives as they see best. The best expression of this principle is well-known: “That government is best which governs least.


Throughout history the dominant model for governing has always placed far too much power in the hands of the central authorities. That wrong theory and practice of governance has always produced oppressive, heavy-handed, top-down governments — governments indistinguishable from Socialism.

But, we on the Right don’t always get it right. To get it right you have to get it 100% right, and we mess that up a lot. Ninety-five percent is not enough. It means that you’ve failed to eradicate a bad problem, leaving in place enough of the problem that it can grow back and fester into the very same problem in the future.

How’s that, you might ask? Easy: we’re really good at diagnosing a problem, and at insisting on getting rid of the problem. We then fail to follow through with the correct aftermath of the problem! To really solve a problem, you have to get rid of the problem… and replace it with something obviously better.

It’s not enough, for example, just to get rid of slavery. If you don’t replace the “peculiar institution” with something better, then there’s no sense in abolishing the thing in the first place. The really good thing is that it ought to be really easy to replace something like slavery with… something obviously better. Something a lot better. And yet, somehow we managed only… marginally better; even only arguably better.

We paved the way for idiots of today, more than a century and a half later, to try to make the case that somehow things are worse today than under slavery.

How is that possible? Easy: When we did the right thing and abolished slavery, we then did not place real, substantive opportunity in front of newly freed slaves. Opportunity that would allow them to turn from their previous uncompensated servitude and face the very real prospect of real, achievable prosperity.

We did that abroad too. In South Africa we identified apartheid as a very bad thing, and we should have been able easily to identify something a lot better with which to replace it when, as was inevitable, it expired.

Instead, with the U.S. in the lead, we allowed Nelson Mandela and a bunch of Socialists to decide what should replace apartheid. Surprise, surprise! They made South Africa a worse, poorer, more racist place than under apartheid. Of course! That’s Socialism! And… Socialists.

Socialism: the thing worse than apartheid.

This was Mandela’s fault first, but ours as well, for not having the courage to say that Mandela was not the right person to take over South Africa after apartheid. Far from a saintly personage, Mandela was a Socialist, whose political predilections doomed his country to jumping from the frying pan of apartheid into the fire of Socialism.

(Parenthetically, this is not any discredit to Mandela. It’s rare that the great figures of resistance — the Mandela’s — also make great political leaders after their resistance has succeeded. There are, of course, exceptions. Washington, Eisenhower, Churchill, deGaulle (though I’m not a fan), possibly Walesa, definitely Wojtyla, come to mind. Then there are the horrible names who failed to make that transition: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro. Mandela was neither a great leader, nor a horrible one… just the wrong one for South Africa.)

In America, we Right-wingers are still the only ones with any constructive, substantive or decent thinking when it comes to the government’s relationship with the governed. And we’re still getting it wrong, by getting it only mostly right. By not covering all the bases.

Here’s another one: Equity vs. Equality of Opportunity. The Left supports the notion of “equity,” and they understand that to mean: the best outcome for all is when everyone’s life outcome is more or less equal.

Whereas we on the Right have correctly identified “equality of opportunity” as the best circumstance to allow for the greatest flourishing and prosperity of all the people.

Equity” requires hamstringing and disincentivizing, even punishing, those with greater intelligence, creativity, initiative, energy and productivity. It requires giving more to those who produce less, while dispossessing those whose efforts and initiative produce more. It’s a recipe to make people equal for the most part, but equally impoverished, equally miserable.

And “Equality of Opportunity” is the answer, right? Right. And wrong.

Wrong, because it’s, again, incomplete. Equal Opportunity is great! If and only if there’s… lots and lots of opportunity.

When you can head on over to Opportunity R Us and roam the many, wide aisles whose shelves are groaning under the weight of all the opportunity.

And, what is opportunity? Easy definition! Abundant Social, Political and Economic Mobility. Equality of that opportunity means that we don’t put any unnecessary obstacles in the path of anyone endeavoring to take advantage of some of that mobility.

You see, the Socialists are great at providing equality of opportunity. Then they strip the land of nearly all social, political and financial mobility. Of nearly all opportunity. Except, that is, for the tiny sliver of a ruling class at the top of the government. The 0.000001% of the 1%.

Equal Opportunity in a time when there’s no opportunity is… useless, worthless, a cruel joke. And, in fact, “a cruel joke” might just be the best way to sum up the word, “Socialism.”

We on the Right have to tell the whole story. We have to show how it is that “equity” is really bad, and “equality of opportunity” is really good. And: oh by the way, here’s how we’re going to provide plenty of opportunity for everyone to have enough. Then we have to show it; clearly and forthrightly and courageously.

We on the Right — our political tendency — got rid of slavery! We got rid of segregation! We got rid of Jim Crow! We passed Civil Rights legislation! We defeated racism… And we did all that against only one major opposing political force: the Left and their political wing, the Democrat Party.

Slowly and steadily, we on the Right have allowed the Left to bring it all back. To re-infect America with all the evils that good and decent people have been trying to expunge from the world for millennia.

Now, the Left openly champions segregation on university campuses and in workplaces. The Left aggressively supports the obvious racism that is Critical Race Theory. The Left has long been in favor of open, codified discrimination against the majority population of the United States, ostensibly to benefit allegedly disfavored minority groups; the very definition of apartheid.

Soon enough there’ll be segregated drinking fountains and bathrooms. We’re well on the way already with the bathrooms.

How about COVID? The Left now openly and loudly favors an unmistakable caste system complete with ID cards, segregated eating and amusement facilities, an untouchables population, travel restrictions and internal passports.

And today’s political Left, like the wannabe totalitarians that they are, openly and aggressively supports, imposes and sometimes violently enforces speech codes, censorship, deplatforming, silencing and frequently “disappearing” dissenting speech.

Ask yourself: If what they’re saying is so self-evidently true, why would any censorship be necessary? Answer: What they’re saying is not true, so censorship is absolutely necessary. This is now, has always been, and always will be true for all totalitarian moments, and for all totalitarian regimes.

For us on the Right, though, it’s not enough just to “provide opportunity.” We on the right have to be sure to demonstrate how we’re removing unnecessary obstacles in the path of those trying to seize opportunity.

One of those obstacles is: entitlement or transfer programs. People need to know that when they earn money through their own hard, productive labor, they’ll be able to keep enough of that money to make it all worth the effort. To make it so that it’s worth more to make a productive living than it is to accept taxpayer-financed generosity.

What’s worse: IF we on the Right can bestir ourselves to begin these things, we’ll have to do it all in the face of what’ll be an unrelenting tsunami of 24/7/365, and 360 degree, propaganda from the Left saying that we’re cold, cruel, heartless bastards taking things from the poor, from black people, from women, babies, children, LGBQTXYZ, ABC, MNOP and a million other so-called “oppressed” groups.

And we will be taking things. Things like monkeys off backs, and bumps from roads, like scales from eyes, and blindfolds. But that’s it. The expression is something like: “The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.” It might be the right thing to do to “give things to people,” but someone somewhere needed to make the case that in order to do that, it was alright first to take those things from someone else. I’ve never seen that case made persuasively by anyone. Some lame attempts, sure, but that’s it.

If the Left is going to counter that they want to “give things to people,” then we the people need to force them to make the case that it’s alright for them first to take from other people. They won’t be able to make that case… because it’s unmakable.

There’s good news here too, though! Opportunity is like economics, like freedom, love and happiness: It’s not a zero-sum game. The more you take of it, the more you make of it, and the more there is for everyone else.

So the right thing to give to others is: opportunity, because the more they take of it, the more there is for everyone else. Let’s just never forget that equality of opportunity is good if and only if there’s plenty of opportunity to go around. Otherwise, it’s just a cruel joke.

The Left, and their political wing the Democrat Party, have been playing cruel jokes on the American people for generations. Let’s not participate in that kind of chicanery, and let’s provide real people in their real lives with real opportunities to make real progress — socially, politically, economically. Let’s stop taking from some and giving to others, and instead give opportunity, and more opportunity, and still more opportunity… to all.

— xPraetorius

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s