Andy Richter Reveals Progressive Attitude

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Before bed last night, on the Conan O'Brien episode on TBS on July 16, 2015, I decided to get a few things done, and had the television on for noise.  The Conan O'Brien show came on, and I kind of watched the Paul Rudd interview, but a comic, a former member of the Daily Show, caught my attention even more.

Comedian Wyatt Cenac was discussing a child he saw from the stoop of his apartment, screaming, "I wanna go back to where we were."

Conan's sidekick, Andy Richter, says, "He could've been republican."

Interesting.

It was an insight to the thinking of the Left.

They call themselves "progressives" because they believe their agenda is about progressing in a good direction.  Change for the sake of change, and progress for the sake of progress is important to these people.  Sticking with what has worked in the past, even if it works, is akin to going back to the dark ages, according to leftist thinking.

Conservatism is a joke to the true believers of liberal Democrats.  Limited Government is an archaic idea and they believe that the government must always be expanding, must always be doing more (otherwise, it's a "do-nothing-congress"), and the envelope must always be pushed forward.  The word "liberal" means "to do something different," to be "open to new behavior or opinions and be willing to discard traditional values," and to buck the old way of doing things.  Holding on to tradition, to these folks, is the same as believing in a flat Earth, and following what they consider to be the mythical sky wizard (God).

In the early years of the United States, the Founding Fathers were considered to be quite liberal.  It was a liberal way to think to be willing to pursue a new way of governance that is by the people, for the people, and of the people, as opposed to the authoritarian system of monarchy, and an established church (that was often the Roman Catholic Church, or in the case of the English, the Church of England).  In Europe, to dare to oppose the King was like opposing God.  To seek to be anything other than a "subject" of the authoritarian system was considered to be treasonous behavior.  Self-governance was a radical, and liberal, concept.

The political spectrum of left versus right is all about amount of government.  The bigger the government, the farther to the left you are.  The smaller the government, the farther to the right.  The Constitution is actually dead-center.  Those who are constitutionalists are actually political moderates.  However, the leftists community has gone so far to the left, the principles of the Constitution are seen as being a right-wing thing, and believing in the Constitution is seen as a refusal to progress (or a desire to go back to where we were, rather than progress to where we can go).

The political spectrum is a little different to liberal leftists.  They don't see the right versus left dynamic as being the amount of government as much as being the willingness to change versus the desire to hold on to old traditional ideas that they believe to be stagnant concepts.  The left's vision of a political spectrum is more in line with that of old France as the country approached the French Revolution, where those that supported not changing away from the system of an authoritarian monarchy and established church sat on the right of the assembly, and those that desired change away from that kind of system sat on the left.  The moderates sat in the middle of the assembly.

The liberal left sees man as an evolving creature, and that evolution requires change, progression away from what humanity once was.  Someday, the liberals believe, the evolution of humanity will eventually progress to utopia, where there is no need for possessions, money, markets, greed or religion, and government will fade away because humanity will become a communal collective where everyone just exists for the common good.  Where the liberal left seeks to take us sounds like the song "Imagine" by John Lennon.  In reality, it is exactly where Karl Marx suggested humanity will aspire to.

Communism, in other words.

Socialism is the authoritarian system that must precede communism, leftists believe, but that will eventually fade away as humanity becomes more collective in their thinking.

The idea that a powerful government system will be willing to give up its power, and fade away for the common good, is folly, of course.  No human that hungry for power gives it away without violence.  Collectivism always leads to coercion, and coercion always leads to violence.  That dynamic has repeated itself over and over throughout history, and the authoritarian ideas of today's liberal left are no different.

They call themselves liberals, progressives and Democrats, but in reality they are all communists.  They abhor where we were as a constitutional republic because that kind of system involves two things they believe to be obstacles in their concept of the evolution of humanity.  The Constitution and Christianity seeks to remain in one place, to conserve the ways of the Constitution, and Biblical teachings. . . and to the liberal left, that is a desire to remain in the dark ages.

There is an old saying.  You don't fix what ain't broke.  The Constitution made this nation the greatest system of government on the face of this Earth.  It limits the power of the government because, despite the left's worship of humanity (they are a bunch of humanists, after all), the reality is that human nature is flawed, and humans cannot be trusted with too much political power.  As our nation abandons the Constitution and the Bible the system is deteriorating into a corrupt and debauched form that will eventually destroy itself from within, and destroy American Society, and its virtuous culture, along with it.  The liberal left has our nation on a downhill slope, and the only way to stop the slippery slope they have us sliding down is for an immovable object to stand in the way.  But even if we stop it, a crash will result.  It will be painful.

As for arguing with folks like Andy Richter, and the true believers of liberal left politics, another old saying comes to mind:

"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience."

I guess what I am saying is that from a political perspective, I think Andy Richter is an idiot.  But, then again, so is every other anti-Constitution hard left liberal.  Luckily, I believe the true believers of leftist idiocy is only about 14% of the population.  I think that most Democrat voters have some kind of non-liberal thinking deep down inside them, and mainly vote Democrat because they believe the deceptive propaganda (you know, "War on Women," "all Republicans are racist," "Conservatives are in the pockets of big corporations," and so on and so on).

As for the term Conservative, I think the left has taken things so far left in government that "Conservative" is now an invalid term.  We should call ourselves Restorationists, because we are no longer about conserving the Constitution as much as we are about restoring it, and restoring the republic.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary