Leftists’ trust in government sounds exactly like blind faith in God

big govt

Cartoon by Bob Gorrell

One thing I’ve noticed about people on the left, whether it be the moderate left or the far-left, is that one of their defining attributes is their faith in the state to look after everyone, particularly the poor and the downtrodden. How terribly naive. Big government has been responsible for keeping the poor where they are, giving generous welfare handouts to keep them satisfied and discouraging social mobility in the process. It leeches from ordinary hard-working citizens with high taxes, but hey, the government takes care of us, right?

I find it bizarre and sometimes disturbing that the left, which once championed individual freedom, is the side of the political spectrum that favours a society in which people are dependant on the state. I would have thought that a truly progressive society would see people less dependant on the state, but apparently not. More to the point, it’s disturbingly odd how leftists can maintain their faith in big government despite its repeated failures. Recent history offers many examples of the failures of big government, from the “War on Poverty” to the Great Recession, and yet whenever big government fails, the left blames capitalism and calls for more government controls. Instead of punishing the failures of big government, somehow the left wants to reward this failure.

The problem is that big government has become the left’s new god. Even when leftists disagree on minor details, one of the few doctrines they are united on is that it’s the government’s job to look after people. Leftists have adopted the same kind of blind faith in big government as fundamentalist Christians do in God, and both expect the same level of obeisance from others. For example, leftists seem to believe that government is responsible for deciding what it is morally right or wrong. That sounds a lot like the classic fundie Christian claim that God is responsible for morality. To believe such a thing requires you to have no faith in individuals to decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

In this regard, I think it comes from a generally negative view of human nature. Dennis Prager once said that leftists believe that human nature is fundamentally good, so they believe society is the problem. I think he was wrong on this one, because what I’ve seen from leftists hints that they have a generally poor view of human nature. They seem to have come to the conclusion that mankind is incapable of making “morally correct” choice, and need the state to force them into the right direction. The best opportunity to get a glimpse into their worldview happens during an election or referendum whenever the result doesn’t go their way. They quickly turn their rage towards the “ignorant masses” who voted the right into power, and often denouncing democracy altogether.

Leftists also have such great faith in government that they think it ought to be in charge of everything, from education to banks, from parenting to agriculture, from businesses to healthcare, from cradle to grave. They see the government as the great provider, master of the weather, the divine all-father and all such nonsense. The problem is that the government cannot be trusted to look after us, or to serve our interests, especially when it gets too big. Ever notice that whenever you have to deal with a state-owned service, such as the NHS or the DVLA, you’re usually forced to wait an ungodly amount of time before you’re dealt with, and you have to put up with generally shoddy service. This is because a state-owned corporation doesn’t have to satisfy its customers in order to turn a profit, because such entities get their revenue from your taxes. No matter how badly they perform, you always have to foot the bill for their mere existence. In contrast, private firms, who don’t rely on the taxpayer, have to satisfy their customers, or else they’ll go out of business.

Because leftists want the government to have control over your lives, they despise anything that helps you to be less reliant on the state. Take the traditional, two-parent family model for instance. With two competent and loving parents, children have a better chance at doing well during their education, and growing up into well-adjusted adults who are gainfully employed and go on to get married themselves, and are less likely to live on benefits. Leftists despise this notion of a stable family. They want more people on welfare so they can say that they are the champions of the poor, even though they are the ones whose policies trap them in a vicious circle.

It has been proven by countless academic reports and studies that children who grow up in broken families are more likely to do poorly in education, and less likely to be employed and more likely to live on welfare as a result. They also end up being more likely to become criminals, go to jail, and if they get married, more likely to repeat the cycle of bad parenting as a result. This is a widely known fact, and yet the left denies this, claiming that such facts are offensive to single mothers.

Leftists also despise school choice, because they believe that public schools are the best way to educate your children. This is a system in which children are forced by law to attend an institution in which attempts to program their education according to national curriculum, and in a manner which ignores the individual needs of children, and expects that all children who pass through it come out the same. Public schools aren’t so much schools as they are factories designed to produce human livestock with, ideally, enough qualifications to merit employment in low-level jobs. It is a system that is designed to crush your children’s hopes and dreams, and yet leftists always rush to its defence whenever anyone dares to suggest reform or alternatives. Take grammar schools for example. The only reason leftists are so dismissive of grammar schools is that they don’t like competition.

But why do they turn to the defence of state-owned institutions in spite of their record of failure? It’s because of their cult-like faith in government, which traps them in rose-tinted lens. For their policies to make any sense requires the view that humans are predisposed to altruism, and that the government is beyond corruption. Real life doesn’t pan out that way. Humans are inherently motivated by self-interest, and power is always a corrupting influence. This is why you cannot trust government to look after you, and the people who do trust in government come across as a new kind of priestly caste, with government as the one true God.

Because we cannot trust government to look after us, we must keep it small enough that it performs its basic functions, and not allow it to grow so big that it has control of our very lives. The smaller the government, the more freedom we have in society, and the less corrupt it can get, and the more money you save under it. The bigger the government, the more money you lose under it, the more freedom is stripped away, and the more corrupt it becomes. The believers in big government can ignore reality all they want, but it’s only a matter of time before their beloved state becomes so big and authoritarian that it eventually turns on them, and they will find that their faith has been misplaced.

Advertisements

The future of faith

faith

In today’s post-modern world, religion is slowly but surely losing its influence over humanity, and as this is happening I’m beginning to suspect that the true value of religious faith is being exposed. When I say this, I’m saying that, with new ways of thinking that make more sense than perspectives offered by organized religion, it is clear that many people don’t have a lot of reason to care about religion to begin with, especially as many people continue to equate all religion with the major organized religions, and the horrible atrocities they are now associated with.

I think that this pattern makes sense. In the dark ages, faith in the religious sense was incredibly strong, but it was due only to the fact that the Catholic Church had created an atmosphere where belief in and submission to God was paramount to survival. Anyone who deviated from the template was persecuted as a heretic. Many died going against the authority of the Church. In today’s world, faith in God is not something you have to have in order to survive. Therefore, many people are only cultural believers, in that they claim to follow Christian values because their afraid of going against the flow, since the Christian culture code still remains subtly dominant to this day.

This mentality is consistently exploited by social conservatives who trumpet the Christian faith, using Christian moral values as a control mechanism to enslave a society still struggling to move on from a frankly embarrassing era in human history. Personally, I think they themselves have a very weak sense of faith. After all, if they’re so desperate to get everyone to believe in their faith, what does it have to say about them? Or, there’s the far more likely scenario that the right-wing sermonizers don’t even believe their own words, and are simply using religion to make a fast buck. Sadly, those self-righteous shysters are all too common, and with them around, it’s little wonder that the idea of religious faith sounds unattractive in today’s world.

Speaking of proselytic shysters, am I the only one who finds it baffling that it’s always the conservatives who take up a religious stance in this world? Why is it that nearly every conservative will leap to the defence of religion when the subject is brought up? Given the consequences of binding oneself or an entire nation to a single religion, what would they have to gain from a staunchly religious stance? Perhaps many conservative politicians only look to religion as a lucrative source of both votes and money, further invoking the human cynicism towards religious faith in the modern world. It might also be possible that religion has become something associated with “the Man”, and in America, nothing exemplifies this more than the presence of the slogan “one nation under God”, which has been a right-wing byword since the 1950’s.

one nation under god

And then, you have the problem of disseminating faith to the next generation. A good reason why religion still survives is because it’s been passed down from generation to generation, but the problem here is that many only believe because they’ve been brought up to believe, and in the Western world, most kids are still brought up on the smoke and mirrors of conservative Christian social values. If given a choice, I think that most kids wouldn’t give a damn about God. I know for a fact that I didn’t until the brief time in which I went to church.

For me, the future of faith is a very bleak one, but that’s only because faith and religion are generally seen by the ignorant masses as one and the same. I think it might also have something to do with the fact that religion isn’t exactly relevant to most people’s lives. If people didn’t judge each other over what they believe, most people wouldn’t even bother cosying up to Christian values, and if religious values have to be kept alive through fear, judgmentalism and paranoid politics, then just how true is our faith in God?

Despite what I’ve said in this article, this doesn’t just apply to Christianity. In fact, it can be applied to any world religion, just that I feel Christianity, particularly Protestant Christianity, is the religion that typifies this trend more than any other, and that particular religion has set a very bad example for other world religions. If the idea of faith is to have any future, then I think we need to rethink the way we see it, and by that I mean we should stop seeing faith as a matter for the whole of society. Instead, I think faith should be a matter of the individual. After all, what we believe ultimately comes down to our feelings and choices. If we continue going with the flow of pernicious sermonizing under the guise of morality, then religion is only doomed to lose yet more meaning in the eyes of many, and when it does finally die, it will die a very undignified death.