About AJ DiCintio
A.J. DiCintio is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal. He first exercised his polemical skills arguing with friends on
the street corners of the working class neighborhood where he grew up.
Retired from teaching, he now applies those skills, somewhat honed and
polished by experience, to social/political affairs.
Ever since Frederick Engels announced that he and Karl Marx had
discovered "scientific Socialism,” leftists the world over — including
American liberals — have plumed themselves on the notion that they base
their social, political and economic ideas firmly upon reason and
But as Shakespeare’s Hotspur said in response to another kind of pompous
bull, talk is cheap. Indeed, with respect to the subject at hand, it is
perfectly cheap because liberals have never placed a bit of science that
supports the tenets of their ideology squarely on the table.
Actually, the task is impossible. Think, for example, about Jefferson’s
"self-evident” notion that humans are "created equal” and "endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Now, ask yourself this
question: Are you aware of any sane text that explains how liberals use
the Scientific Method to discover human rights in the stuff that blew
out of the Big Bang?
Of course you aren’t because only the mad commit such nonsense to paper.
(Thank goodness there are special hospitals to treat those who wildly
and unabashedly insist that a right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness” is as much a demonstrable part of the physical universe as a
proton, neutron, electron, or gamma ray.)
Let us dismiss, therefore, assertions about the superior rationality of
liberals and concentrate, instead, upon the quality of the belief system
accepted by members of the Liberal Church.
What we find is that liberals are not scientific at all, arrogantly
believing that they can spin reality from the same empty words, words,
words whose power Hotspur so excellently mocked.
Recently, David Brooks illuminated this point in a piece describing
scientific research that shows humans make moral judgments not by
"reason and deliberation” but as a result of "rapid intuitive decisions
[that] involve the emotion-processing parts of the brain.”
Having presented the science, Brooks commented about those at whom its
findings take aim, including "the new atheists [read "leftists”] who see
themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an
unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their
How well that observation captures American liberals, whose arrogance in
asserting "the purity of their own reasoning” is so madly all-consuming
that when frustrated in attempts to "force their religion” on others
through the legislative process, they believe it sweet and just to
impose their agenda on the public through rulings of the dictatorial
high priests they euphemistically call liberal activist judges.
(Attesting to the fact that every arrogant, power loving fraud is, among
other contemptible things, a raging hypocrite, every one of the endless
laws and judicial decrees passed and issued by "anti-gun” liberals is
ultimately enforced by the power of a governmental gun, the most
dangerous gun of all.)
This month, the honest, true blue-collar intellectual Camille Paglia
(Salon) also took aim at America’s self-anointed avatars of rationality:
"Liberalism, like second-wave feminism, seems to have become a new
religion for those who profess contempt for religion. It has been
reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the
working class as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of
salvation by the state. Individual rights and free expression, which
used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of
Now, under different circumstances, many of us would argue hotly against
the "seems to have become” in the passage above. But since Camille
Paglia authored it, we’ll calmly suggest "is” as the accurate verb.
And we’ll remain just as calm as we recommend "liberalati” for this gem
that "Hurricane Camille” lovingly directed to her readers: "Don’t get me
started on the hermetic bourgeois arrogance of [the] American literati!”
Despite the warnings of thinkers such as Brooks and Paglia, some folks
may still be unconvinced of the dangerous arrogance that characterizes
the pseudo-scientists who love the high-booted statism preached by the
Liberal (or "Progressive”) Church.
For them, this account of what most likely will occur if biologists
discover a "religion gene” ought to erase any doubt:
Happy to hear the news, people of faith will ascribe the gene to God’s
Excited about the finding, biologists will get working to ascertain when
the gene appeared in the human genome as well as to determine how it
functions, especially with respect to human survival.
Looking as though they just downed a pint of concentrated hydrochloric
acid, liberals will immediately propose a thousand "fully funded”
federal programs aimed at undoing a "mistake” made by a "multitasked to
distraction” Mother Nature, who, it is clear, "wants humans to create a
world of peace, love, and self-actualization entirely through the
triumph of reason.”
The last reaction is, of course, presented humorously (except for the
part about the half quart of acid). But its intent is to illustrate the
fundamental arrogance of liberal ideology:
From one side of their mouths, liberals proclaim that the carbon-based
life form Homo sapiens floats helplessly on a blue dot along the
edge of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which fly
meaninglessly through the vastness of something into which Mother Nature
— having squeezed an unknowable ball with unimaginable force — blasted
this purely material universe into being.
From the other side of their mouths, liberals tell us not just that
Mother speaks of purpose but that because they understand the language
by which she expresses her commandments, they are obliged on earth to
make her work their own.
Imputing a purpose to nature.
astounding perversion of reason by the latter-day Gullivers called
liberals doesn’t send one shivering, nay, shuddering, nothing will.