I don't think there actually is an "Ultra-Liberal Left". I disbelieve that there actually is an "ultra Liberal freedom and rights" crowd. I think it's entirely a fabrication of the Ultra-Regressives (so-called, "conservatives") -- an imagining after their own (self-)image. I say why, next.
There is no "ultra Liberal freedom" without commensurate "ultra"-responsibility -- because freedom sets into motion effects that must then be responsibly handled, lest "the train of effects" get derailed, catastrophically -- with resultant loss of influence, credibility -- and freedom. Add to that the loss of freedom due to the necessity of handling those catastrophic effects.
That's why with all freedom must involve commensurate responsibility.
However, the Ultra-Regressives (a.k.a., "conservatives" and "right wing"), DO believe in freedom without responsibility.
As a handy example, take the "2nd Amendment 'guns'" crowd. They want the freedom to own guns (of all kinds) without having to assume commensurate responsibility for all of the effects of "gun culture" -- i.e., shootings by "crazies" who get their guns ... those guns ... from where? and how?
They irresponsibly invoke the 2nd Amendment, irresponsibly, because they misrepresent and distort the meaning of it to mean "anyone, anytime", rather than, as the written words state, "in a state militia". "In a state militia" is a statement of a necessary condition of responsibility. It doesn't imply ownership of guns in ones home or for sport. It doesn't imply ownership, at all; that's added, by unspoken pre-supposition. It just as likely could be interpreted to mean, "A gun will be issued to you while you're in the state militia," -- of a kind suitable for use by a state militia. You know. Standard issue, with standard training.
That's an example of wanting freedom without responsibility and the effects of wanting freedom without responsibility.
It is characteristic of "Ultra-Regressive Right" tactics to attribute to ones opposition, ones own faults. In this case, it's attributing the fault of being "a freedom and rights" crowd to centrist progressives, who call for, and take, responsibility commensurate with the freedoms they work for. Freedom and Responsibility. Freedom entailing responsibility.
So, it altogether seems to me that "the ultra-Liberal Left" -- as a "rights and freedom" political type and movement -- is a MYTH fabricated by the Ultra-Regressive Right. It is a fabrication "in their own image". "Liberals" and "the Ultra-Liberal Left" are an imaginary fabrication used to mischaracterize Centrist Progressives, to impede. The accusation of being "ultra-liberal freedom and rights"-oriented is false of the one and true of the other.
The demand for a free gun culture without it being a responsible gun culture is a demand for ultra-liberal freedom and rights, where guns are concerned.
SO, WHODUNNIT?
Ultra-Regressive Right persons are readily identifiable, by name.
What "Ultra-Liberal Left" persons can you identify, by name?
"Left" implies a position quite divergent from the most prevalent consensus values of society, at large. If it's in alignment with the most prevalent values, we should call it, "centrist". However, the word, "Left", is commonly used, instead.
Now, with that understanding, whom can we identify as "Ultra-Left"?? and what makes them, "Ultra"?
No comments:
Post a Comment