Am I Too Hard on the Left?

Bookmark and Share
Posted by

  • Share on Tumblr

Having watched the video of my recent speech in L.A., a critic writes:

Woods isolates himself by insulting the “Left,” since he’s still brainwashed by that false Left-Right paradigm.

I don’t know anyone – Left or Right – who appreciates being groped by the TSA, or who wants their food genetically modified, or wants to bailout banksters, or who embraces never-ending war.

Let’s grow up politically and recognize what we agree on, instead of dividing us further with these insults based on a 200-yr-old French label that no longer fits anyone today.

It may be a bit harsh to call me “brainwashed,” especially when at the end I went out of my way to look for people on the New Left who might have been sympathetic to my message, and given that I did, after all, do this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods95.html

Now part of me agrees with “the Left-Right spectrum is meaningless” argument.  But another part of me thinks as follows: someone watches the Rachel Maddow Show, and those people do describe themselves as being on the Left.  And — having experienced this myself, courtesy of thought-control websites that expressly identify themselves with the Left — I can testify that 99.9% of such people are disposed to demonize nullification, an idea they know zero about, even though it could be used to bring about “progressive” goals.  Further, 99.9% of them are nationalists, who cannot imagine a decentralist approach to human affairs.  Hardly any of them have had a single unconventional thought in their lives.  They fully deserve the ridicule I dished out to them.

And many of those people, Maddow included, certainly did support the bailouts. Has my critic missed all the perverse “I told you so” articles about how wonderful TARP turned out to be?  As for “never-ending” war, it depends on whether a Democrat is in charge. We all know what happened to the “antiwar” movement under Obama.

Now I did not invent these people.  They do exist.  While considering themselves cheeky, they dutifully repeat every foundational myth of the regime.  They are beneath contempt intellectually and morally.  Perhaps the objection is to calling them “leftists.”  Would it make things better if I called them wuzzles, and then criticized wuzzles?

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [send him mail; visit his website], a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, is the author of eleven books, most recently Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse and Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, as well as the New York Times bestsellers Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. He is also the editor of five other books, including the just-released Back on the Road to Serfdom.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Or make a donation to help keep this site active.
Support the Tenth Amendment Center!

This entry was posted on Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 8:04 am. It is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

1 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

Calling them "wuzzles" will not help, either.

Of all people, you must know what it is like to be wrong, because you admit it.

You say there was once a time when you were a pro-war neocon, but "now, you've seen the light." I am sure you experienced people telling you, back then, how wrong you were. When they said you were "beneath contempt, intellectually and morally," did it make you want to go join them? Or did it make you want to dig in and be hard-headed in defending your erroneous position?

People who polarize make the news and tend to attract followers. For that reason, your approach may be just right for you from a marketing perspective. I have to admit, you have an uncanny sense of humor when it comes to being a critic and stereotyping. That's a part of the comedy. It is entertaining. It lacks PURE intellectual honesty, but if it didn't, it would be dry. So, you're in a dilemma between pure intellectual honesty vs. entertainment and popularity. It's the same dilemma that faces MSNBC and Fox News.

There's no easy answer. I think your work, and your approach, are very valuable. To maintain the entertainment and humor, maybe you can count these lefties as among potential friends to your cause and leave the bashing and biting humor to those in control over America who deserve it. Part of a good war strategy is to define the enemy correctly.

After all, look at all those things lefties have done to promote nullification - as in pot, gay marriage, abortion, civil rights, and such. These people can't be THAT stupid. It's just a matter of re-orienting them to a common cause. Easier said than done, I know.

Anyway, I really do admire your speaking abilities. You have a gift.

Keep up the good work, Tom.