Your book is an attack on what you term the “Modern Liberal?” How do you define “Modern Liberal?” And if this ideology is a new phenomenon, as you suggest, where do we find its intellectual foundations?
It is essential that one understand that the “Modern Liberal” is not simply a liberal who happens to be alive today. I call them “Liberals” only because they typically call themselves Liberals, and I felt that any other word would fail to make clear just how prevalent the ideology is. I inserted the modifier “Modern” to make clear that they are not who they say they are, nor are they what “Liberals” used to be. In fact, the Modern Liberal is as much at war against “classical” liberal values as he is against conservative ones, for mature values are not found in the kindergarten classroom, and they can be the stuff about which people might disagree, fight and even war.
Modern Liberalism is a new ideology — or rather, one that is new in its prevalence to the Modern Liberal era (post-World War II through today). It traces its call for the rejection of intellect to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who sought to replace thinking with passion and feeling (just like the small child). But whereas Rousseau’s ideology of abject and intentional stupidity was roundly rejected by people who lived in times and places where intelligence was required to avoid and survive real world difficulties like disease, hunger, poverty and physical pain, in post-World War II America — with science and technology having just about eradicated these things — an ideology that was based upon recreating paradise by retarding the moral and intellectual growth of its followers found greater acceptance.
You write that modern liberals reject the intellectual process as a moral imperative and that they always side with evil over good. Do you really believe that?
I do, and, in fact, one follows inevitably from the other. These are what I call the first two Laws of the Unified Field Theory of Liberalism. The first is that thinking is an act of bigotry to be avoided by all moral people and reviled when seen practiced by others. The rationale behind the outlawing of thought is that, anything a person concludes is going to have been so tainted by his personal prejudices – prejudices all people possess as simply part of the human experience based on things like the color of their skin, the nation of their ancestry, their height, weight, sex and so on, that the only way not to be a bigot is to never think at all.
The Second Law is that indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy, it leads — and, in fact can only lead — to the Modern Liberal siding with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. After all, if no culture, no religion, no form of governance or anything else is better than anything else, then the Modern Liberal has no explanation for success and failure. To those to whom indiscriminateness is a moral imperative (because its opposite is discrimination), success – as proved by nothing other than the fact that it has succeeded is all the proof that’s required for them to conclude that some injustice must have taken place. The same is true with failure. If nothing is better than anything else, then failure – as proved by nothing other than the fact that it has failed – serves as definitive proof that the failure has somehow been victimized. And the same is true of good and evil. If no person, culture, religion and so on is better or worse than any other, then anything society deems to be good can be said to be so only because of society’s bigotries. This led Thomas Sowell to conclude that, to those I call the Modern Liberals, “That which is held in esteem qualifies to be their target; that which is held in disdain qualifies to be their mascot.”