Liberals, as you know, are sneaky. Never ones to admit failure, they often react to the inconvenient facts of the present by resorting to the past, coloring it their way to prove that history and the world are on their side. And they can be bald-faced liars about it, too.
Leftists have been bad about covering up the facts for a long time. If you want a good example of how they edit history, look no further than good ol' Karl Marx. His greatest hits are famous not only as a call to arms for the working class but for playing fast and loose with the facts. Consider Das Kapital, a multi-volume book so dense and confusing probably none of his followers ever read it. Probably you can guess the tone: Capitalism is evil and oppressive, it forces the working class to toil in miserable conditions, the government is complicit in this because it is run by and for capitalists, etc.
Now, being a self-styled "scientific socialist," Marx probably backed these claims up with lots of anecdotes and statistics that showed just how bad the working man had it, right? Well, not so much. In fact, practically the entire book was devoted to Marx outlining his theories of labor and capital and so on, and his predictions that one day the proletariat would rise up and destroy capitalism. As for evidence of oppression, he supplied practically none, vaguely referring the reader to an earlier book by his partner-in-crime, Friedrich Engels.
Engels' book did have lots of juicy tidbits on miserable working conditions, long hours, child labor, and so on, but the problem was, it was horribly out of date. The Condition of the Working Class in England, published in 1845, repeatedly described cases of bad sanitation and poor factory oversight that had come from the beginning of the century, but which were treated in the book as current events. Even more seriously, it omits any mention that the British government, as well as many of the largest and most advanced industrial operations, had been working to improve labor conditions and denouncing shoddy practices since at least the 1830s, well before anyone had heard of Marx and Engels, and that many of the most heinous stories cited came from the most pre-capitalist enterprises (like blacksmithing). And Marx's Das Kapital was another twenty years out of date; nor was he any better about accurately presenting sources or fairly evaluating those he criticized.
The truth about industrialization is that, while it certainly had some drawbacks, there were from the very beginning (the late 18th century onward) a number of people (wealthy landowners, capitalist factory owners, high-placed government officials tied to both these groups) who were very concerned about the condition of the working class and sought to protect it from abuse and make working conditions as palatable as possible. It's also true that capitalism would, over many decades, greatly improve the position of most people in the Western world, rich and poor. But that would have been inconvenient for Marx and Engels to admit, even if they had been more rigorous and honest.
It's the same story for other leftists' versions of history. In the 20th century, pro-Communist intellectuals claimed the Soviet Union had been working fine until American hostility messed it up; others claimed that white imperialists had had a policy of wiping out non-white populations wherever possible; etc etc. Just the other day I saw where someone was claiming U.S. soldiers in Vietnam regularly carried out atrocities, My Lai-style, and backed it up with nothing more than John Kerry's histrionic testimony to Congress in the '70s. Just remember: If someone's account of history seems to fit too neatly into the Left's version of reality, you probably want to be skeptical.
Leftists have been bad about covering up the facts for a long time. If you want a good example of how they edit history, look no further than good ol' Karl Marx. His greatest hits are famous not only as a call to arms for the working class but for playing fast and loose with the facts. Consider Das Kapital, a multi-volume book so dense and confusing probably none of his followers ever read it. Probably you can guess the tone: Capitalism is evil and oppressive, it forces the working class to toil in miserable conditions, the government is complicit in this because it is run by and for capitalists, etc.
Now, being a self-styled "scientific socialist," Marx probably backed these claims up with lots of anecdotes and statistics that showed just how bad the working man had it, right? Well, not so much. In fact, practically the entire book was devoted to Marx outlining his theories of labor and capital and so on, and his predictions that one day the proletariat would rise up and destroy capitalism. As for evidence of oppression, he supplied practically none, vaguely referring the reader to an earlier book by his partner-in-crime, Friedrich Engels.
Engels' book did have lots of juicy tidbits on miserable working conditions, long hours, child labor, and so on, but the problem was, it was horribly out of date. The Condition of the Working Class in England, published in 1845, repeatedly described cases of bad sanitation and poor factory oversight that had come from the beginning of the century, but which were treated in the book as current events. Even more seriously, it omits any mention that the British government, as well as many of the largest and most advanced industrial operations, had been working to improve labor conditions and denouncing shoddy practices since at least the 1830s, well before anyone had heard of Marx and Engels, and that many of the most heinous stories cited came from the most pre-capitalist enterprises (like blacksmithing). And Marx's Das Kapital was another twenty years out of date; nor was he any better about accurately presenting sources or fairly evaluating those he criticized.
The truth about industrialization is that, while it certainly had some drawbacks, there were from the very beginning (the late 18th century onward) a number of people (wealthy landowners, capitalist factory owners, high-placed government officials tied to both these groups) who were very concerned about the condition of the working class and sought to protect it from abuse and make working conditions as palatable as possible. It's also true that capitalism would, over many decades, greatly improve the position of most people in the Western world, rich and poor. But that would have been inconvenient for Marx and Engels to admit, even if they had been more rigorous and honest.
It's the same story for other leftists' versions of history. In the 20th century, pro-Communist intellectuals claimed the Soviet Union had been working fine until American hostility messed it up; others claimed that white imperialists had had a policy of wiping out non-white populations wherever possible; etc etc. Just the other day I saw where someone was claiming U.S. soldiers in Vietnam regularly carried out atrocities, My Lai-style, and backed it up with nothing more than John Kerry's histrionic testimony to Congress in the '70s. Just remember: If someone's account of history seems to fit too neatly into the Left's version of reality, you probably want to be skeptical.
14 comments:
T-Rav, This is a lie/technique liberals use over and over and it drives me nuts. They use this against the 1950s too. They cherry pick a couple examples of people who were rotten and say, "See, this is what it was like until good liberals came along in the 1960s!" Yeah, only everything they claim credit for in the 1960s was either done in the 1950s or begun in the 1950s and finished a few years later -- see, e.g. desegregation.
Over and over, in my experience, liberals invent history based on some real example that they wrongly extrapolate to everyone in that era and sometime beyond.
Don't forget that Lincoln was a Democrat.
No, Lincoln was a vampire slayer, and that makes him a Vampublican.
Liberalism=Mental Illness. I know, I see it all the time. One of the traits, habits, what have you that I see very often in my mentally ill clients is a reliance on volumes of notes either written or saved from newspapaers and magazines that they use to impress me, the judge or whoever as to how hard they are working to get along. Marx, Engels, and many other super libs/socialists/commies try to inundate the reader with so many facts that it is impossible to actually know what's real, what's not and what was the point? Adam Smith was able to accurately conceptualize the basic theory of capitalism in a few sentences. We still talk about the "invisible hand" of the market..how simple and accurate, absolute genius. Ronald Reagan did not have to drone on and on to get his points across; say like AlGore, Lurch Kerry and of course the hero of Chappaquidick, Ted Kennedy. Liberals use bombast, wild accucsations and fear to persuade people. Have conservatives done this? Sure, but it doesn't tend to play well for too long with conservative audiences. More people have died in the name of Marxism than in the name of any religion on the face of the earth, the athiests lead in the body count.
Liberalism=Mental Illness. I know, I see it all the time. One of the traits, habits, what have you that I see very often in my mentally ill clients is a reliance on volumes of notes either written or saved from newspapaers and magazines that they use to impress me, the judge or whoever as to how hard they are working to get along. Marx, Engels, and many other super libs/socialists/commies try to inundate the reader with so many facts that it is impossible to actually know what's real, what's not and what was the point? Adam Smith was able to accurately conceptualize the basic theory of capitalism in a few sentences. We still talk about the "invisible hand" of the market..how simple and accurate, absolute genius. Ronald Reagan did not have to drone on and on to get his points across; say like AlGore, Lurch Kerry and of course the hero of Chappaquidick, Ted Kennedy. Liberals use bombast, wild accucsations and fear to persuade people. Have conservatives done this? Sure, but it doesn't tend to play well for too long with conservative audiences. More people have died in the name of Marxism than in the name of any religion on the face of the earth, the athiests lead in the body count.
History rarely conforms neatly to one's political dogma.
Andrew, a few liberals I've known have gotten creative and claimed the '50s really weren't so bad, but only because America had basically liberal policies in place (er, no). It's difficult to deal with them when they get into the high weeds of conspiracy theories and such.
All you can do is refute them, one lie at a time.
Andrew, tryanmax, you're both wrong. Lincoln was the secret alpha male of the lycans, and everyone knows the werewolves are Green Party supporters.
Everybody retcons. After 9/11 people claimed that the attacks showed that American's leadership was weak and that if we had a strong leader like Reagan, such attacks wouldn't have happened and if they did he would have crushed them. In reality, after a massive terror attack in Lebanon which killed 283 servicemen, Reagan pulled out and limited himself to dropping a few bombs in retaliation. Strategically that was an eminently defensible move (Reagan was focused on taking down the greater threat of the USSR) but I could see him being crucified for such a move nowadays.
On a similar note, deceased public figures tend to be twisted to suit the needs of the living. Everybody and their grandmother claims to be following in the footsteps of popular public figures like Reagan and MLK and most of them can even provide a quote which in isolation supports their position. Many of the people who claim to be following these figures can't stand being in the same room with each other.
Along those lines, some people claim multiple influences, and sometimes those multiple influences are at loggerheads. For example, there are people who claim to be devoutly religious and fans of Ayn Rand (who to put it mildly, had no use for religion).
"a few liberals I've known have gotten creative and claimed the '50s really weren't so bad,"
The problem with this is WHAT was "not so bad"? Each political camp bases that statement on something different. It's like that famous Time Mag poll during the Bush Administration and used repeatedly to excoriate Bush/Republicans/Cheney/anyone for whatever reason.
"Is the country moving in the right direction?" or "Is the country moving in the wrong direction?"
That was (and still is) the most ridiculous poll question to ask because as we all can see, they pollsters do not define on what to base the answer - socially, fiscally, politically, you name it. Without defining it, everyone assumes their own definition and you get a response in which it looks like everyone is either overwhelmingly disgruntled (Bad Republicans) or overwhelming thrilled (Good Democrats).
Kit: Word.
Critch, that's an interesting comparison. There is a sense in which the Left is akin to a big conspiracy theory, as it relies on an "us vs. them" way of looking at the world, where someone is always being oppressed, the realities of social and economic systems are never taken into account, and the powerful are always and invariably "bad guys."
Many liberals are extremely smart, of course--at least in a technical sense. Many of them can write very well, much better than Marx, and present arguments loaded down with facts. But the assumptions on which those arguments are based on nothing substantial. Like you say, sometimes less is more.
Bev, That is the most worthless question in the political world, and yet the talking heads don't seem to realize it -- or they cynically exploit it.
Bev, in this particular instance the claim was that America had a strong economy in the '50s, at the same time as it had extremely high tax rates for the rich, ergo high taxes=Awesome. I asked why, if that was the case, JFK felt the need to drastically lower said rates when he took office, to which I never got a response.
On the poll question you mention, I hate that one. It's not a fair one to ask at all, because it doesn't take into account the reasons one thinks the country is going in a particular direction. It could be that you think the direction is due to the President's policies; it could be that you think it's in spite of his policies; you might even blame someone else entirely. This is why should never trust claims made about public opinion.
Post a Comment