Political philosophy

Here is why you NEVER want

a Leftist leader:

See, Leftist are, at heart, Rationalists rather than Empiricists. So when Leftists are faced with an issue, their question is rooted in that Rationalism and they ask, “What makes conceptual sense, here?

An Empiricist asks a different question. He or she asks, “What has worked in the past?” They want to conserve what has already been learned. In other words, they are empirically rooted in the past in a way that Rationalists simply are not.

And it’s why you don’t want a Lefty leader. Certainly not on a clan or nation level. Sure, you can talk about how Leftism just doesn’t work, but it goes far deeper than mere outcome. It’s not just a bad outcome that indicts Leftism/Rationalism. It is the very foundation of Leftism that is inherently unstable

A Leftist/Rationalist has only theory to work with. They don’t have “the wisdom of the ages” because they are much more wedded to whatever wind of trendy doctrine sounds good now. Oh, and they think they are just way smarter than all those rubes in history… 

So you absolutely want a historical Empiricist as a leader. Otherwise, you are at the mercy of whatever idea seems to make conceptual sense right now—to that particular leader. And if thought trends change (maybe it is just “a bit of bad beef”—thanks Dickens!), so does the thinking of the leader. Hence the famous terror in the old USSR (and ALL Lefty regimes) that today you are in the “in crowd,” but you may be facing the firing squad tomorrow!

For example, a Lefty/Rationalist says, “We need to get rid of all guns because it totally makes conceptual sense that if there are no guns there can be no gun crime!” The Conservative/Empiricist says, “Yeah, but the actual data show that the higher the rate of gun ownership by regular people is strongly associated with a lower incidence of violence of ALL sorts, including gun crime!”

So there is a fundamental difference in approach. Not that it is exclusively one approach or other for either side, but it is certainly the prominent trend. 

This is why people on both sides think, “THIS will clinch it,” but it actually doesn’t. They are arguing on two completely different wavelengths. The Conservative thinks that this is all about facts, while the Leftist thinks this is all about conceptual satisfaction.

Thus, there is often this “paradigm blindness” on both sides.

Political philosophy


warmly welcome you to the world they created. THIS is what Leftism creates.

Political philosophy

Yes, there are some

hard lessons the younger (25-35) crowd needs to learn. And in MANY ways, the generation just behind them are way ahead of them…

Look folks, listen to the wisdom of the ages: There’s no such thing as a free lunch…

Don’t be a rat in a trap. Don’t be snookered!

Political philosophy

Leftism is

inherently unstable. And that is true because of the nature of Leftism itself.

Think about it: Conservatism is empirical in nature. Its focus is on what has worked in the past. So the past is key to understanding the world.

Leftism, OTOH, is based in a Continental Rationalism. As such, it is NOT rooted in what has worked in the past, but on what seems to make sense now. And that changes from day to day. It changes with every trend of Lefty doctrine. It is the wind. For a Leftist, let the evidence (and thus the past) be damned!

So inherently, Leftism is as unstable as the current fad. Ask the Soviets (and all Leftist regimes)–what is good today and that same thing may get you the firing squad tomorrow! Styles change, and so does Lefty doctrine (except at the violent core). It is the sand shifting under your feet.

In other words, Leftism is inherently unstable. I mean, your kinda Lefty parents and grandparents would gasp in unbelief at hearing what a Lefty believes and endorses today. But the same is simply not true for Conservatives–certainly not nearly to the same extent, anyway.

Epistemology Political philosophy

It’s important to

know that there are two main differences between Conservative and Liberal ideology: One is that Conservatives are basically British Empiricists while Liberals are at heart Continental Rationalists.

That is something I have talked about before, and you can bet that I will again. Not now, however. I’m focused on something else. But without that basic understand the whole intellectual endeavor is fraught with anger and misunderstanding.

But there is another: Conservatives seek a restoration of things that have, in the past, been known to work. Broadly, Conservatives want to keep what has been demonstrated in the past to be good. THAT is what is being conserved. Liberals, on the other hand, want to destroy everything and start anew.

It’s related, since we have empirical evidence about what has worked in the past and what hasn’t. But it’s not really the same thing as Empiricism as a foundational ethic. But the Conservative impulse is indeed to keep what has been shown to work, and avoid thinking that you know so much that you can (and should) re-create society according to your lights.

Modern Liberals almost always see themselves as iconoclasts, and seek to utterly destroy the things of the past and start again. The wrecking ball and sledge hammer are never far from their hands. Thus, their focus is famously on the “new man” and “Heaven on earth.”

In other words, modern Liberals are not interested in remodeling society. Their goal is not to “bring it up to code,” it is to tear down the whole thing and build anew (most often in their own image). 

Whereas the Conservative says, “Yeah, it needs some sprucing up but the ‘bones’ are good,” the Liberal says, “Nothing is worth preserving—let’s just tear the whole thing down and build it anew. We’ll build it better this time, because we are so dang smart and awesome that we can do that sort of thing, while the benighted racists/sexists/homophobes/morons/bigots of the past got it all wrong–WE know better now!”

This “take” is not at all controversial. I really doubt even hard Leftists would disagree. It is merely a statement of fact–there IS no value-judgment necessarily attached to it. Liberals want to tear the whole thing down and build anew, while Conservatives want to preserve the historical basic structure.

Hence, the Leftist impulse is to destroy in many areas (such as abortion, BLM, reliance on force, etc.), because such destruction is part and parcel of the whole Lefty worldview. On the other side, the Conservative impulse is to preserve (preserve life, peace, moral agency/freedom, etc.).

Political philosophy

Well, people DO

have their quasi-religious political beliefs:

Political philosophy

See, the basic

problem is that Lefties are, at heart, Continental Rationalists while Conservatives strongly tend to be in the tradition of the British Empiricists.

There are many examples of this, and it is a strong thread that runs throughout both of these political philosophies. It is also why most often Conservatives and Leftists talk passed each other.

Let me take only one example: Gun Control.

The Leftist has many theoretical reasons for gun control. It “just makes sense” that if there were no guns available in general, there would be no gun crime. Rational, eh?

But the Conservative points out that the data show that the more guns carried by regular people, the LESS gun crime there is. Sure, we can think about why that might be, but empirically we know what actually is.

Thus we see the conflict: The Leftist wants to talk about what makes sense, while the Conservative talks about observed outcomes, regardless of intention.

So basically, the Leftist says, “It’s so beautiful!” while the Conservative brusquely says, “Yeah, but it is a dog that don’t hunt–it doesn’t work.”

Yes, Rationalism vs. Empiricism. Tale as old as time…

Current Events Political philosophy

Yes, that is

undoubtedly true. And Democrats should be crappin’ bricks over this.

But that’s just the starting point for the transformation that is occurring. The numbers below the fold evince a lot of upside that hasn’t been realized yet in terms of party politics.

…. (Texas Hispanic) Respondents gave the Republican Party a 15-point lead over Democrats as the party more associated with “hard work,” an 8-point lead as the party more supportive of small businesses, and a 7-point lead as the party better for fixing the immigration system.

Political philosophy

Things really ARE

different now. In the past, the Left have taken the (needed) role of reformers. In terms of homes, they thought the “bones” were good–we just needed to remodel the kitchen and the bathrooms. You know, add a bathroom and maybe even a sunroom. Clear out the old plumbing that leaks and put new stuff in. Bring the electrical up to snuff.

And most of us were onboard with that. I myself have voted for Democrat reformers. Yeah, that was in the early 90s. Why only back then?

Because modern Leftists are NOT reformers, they are iconoclasts. They do not want to remodel, they want to destroy the whole thing and start re-building. They want the wrecking ball now, not the wrench.

And most of us are NOT on board for that!

I didn’t leave them, they left me. I remained the same–they changed.

It’s the same difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

In the American Revolution, the American patriots considered themselves to be Englishmen, first and foremost. They certainly were not trying to destroy the system–they were angry that according to the system they were being deprived of their rights!

They built the new government using the British model and the magna carta. The revolution was fundamentally Conservative.

OTOH, the French Revolution was not about reform, it was about destroying the current political arrangement. They didn’t want the king to treat them better, they wanted to destroy the OFFICE of a king.

So Democrats may indeed wonder why moral people reject them now. But it is because they are no longer reformers, but iconoclasts. This isn’t your father’s and grandpa’s Democrat party!

Political philosophy

Words that Lefties

will never hear:

It is NOT low IQ, it is willful ignorance and being a craven simp for the Left…