Sean Edwards

The American Resurrection

Why Modern Liberalism Is Fascism In Disguise

fascismMany people identify modern liberalism as the open-minded, tolerant political philosophy. And for good reason. They certainly don’t think of themselves as fascists.

Modern liberalism rails against social injustices and seeks to move the world into a better era.

It stands for marriage equality. It is race and gender blind. And it believes people should not be unfairly barred from the resources they need to succeed (education, medical care, etc…).

And for this modern liberalism should be commended.

But behind this ideology, lies a secret, hidden intolerance of which most are unaware.

It’s not so much in what modern liberalism seeks to accomplish that is the problem. It is how it tries to make those changes.

In fact, if people truly saw what this worldview meant… I think they would be appalled and abandon the system.

Many Americans – myself once included – have accepted a worldview that at first seems the pinnacle of western civilization… but they don’t see the hook at its heart.

I want to propose that modern liberalism – though its aims are noble – actually produces the very opposite of its goal.

And that it is more similar to fascism than it is to liberty and freedom.

How is modern liberalism anything like fascism? I’m glad you asked…

Modern Liberalism & Fascism:
Unexpected Ideological Brothers

fascismMeriam-Webster defines fascism as such:

“A way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government”

We may not have a single dictator, but the rest of this definition applies. Let me explain.

Modern liberalism gets its name from Liberalism. Today, we call those who follow the original tenants of Liberalism libertarians. Classical Liberalism (or libertarianism) stands upon the divine right of every person to certain inalienable rights – rights that no other human can violate.

Most of the mainstream population believes libertarians are just more hardcore conservatives. But this could not be further from the truth. If you read my other post on this topic (Why Modern Conservatism Is Jihad In Disguise) you will see conservatism has its own serious problems.

In order to understand how modern liberalism is similar to fascism, we need to understand liberalism, it’s parent ideology:

  • God (or nature) created every person
  • Because of this, He alone has authority over our lives
  • Thus, in relationship to each other, we are utterly equal.

Since I did not create you, I have no authority over your life

  • That equality gives us certain rights in relationship to each other:
  1. You have the right to your life (no other human has the right to end your life).
  2. You have the right to live your life how you see fit (No other human has the right to enslave you or dictate your life).
  3. You have the right to the fruit of your life and labor (No other human has the right to steal from you).
  • But not everyone accepts this equality. Some people believe they have the right to steal from you… rape you… or kill you.
  • Therefore, for the sake of peace and tranquility, people give up some of their equality to establish the government as an objective third party that enforces these rights (the police, army, and justice system).
  • Government only exists because we want it to make our inherent rights as individuals a reality.

I just condensed thousands of pages and centuries of philosophy into a few bullet points. So please excuse my gross oversimplifications.

But here is an important take away: Without government, our inherent rights as individuals are not real. Anyone could come along and violate them. They could be thieves, thugs, or an invading army. In theory we may have equal rights, but not in practice.

We therefore empower the government to establish and protect those rights. This way we can be truly free.

Even though we have to give up a little bit of our theoretical freedom to do this, we gain an immeasurable amount of practical freedom.

And that is the sole moral reason for the government to exist.

If the government tries to do more than this, it must by nature violate the inherent rights of every individual.

Modern Liberalism Is GREAT, Except For This One Thing…

And this is where modern liberalism errs… and partners with tyrants.

To accomplish its high and lofty goals, modern liberalism must use the government as its instrument of social change.

Lets look at healthcare as an example. If people don’t have access to healthcare, modern liberalism uses the government to make it so.

But in order to do that, it must tax some people to pay for the healthcare of others.

We are in essence, forcing someone to pay for another person’s medical bills. It is no different in principle than going door to door and holding people at gunpoint to make them pay for another person’s doctors visit.

We may like the idea of universal healthcare, but when we use the government to achieve it, we have violated the inherent rights of all people to do so.

We have legislated theft.

This is true for most of the political agenda for modern liberalism. To achieve its noble goals, it must become tyrannical in nature. It must decide that it has the right to people’s money and their lives… as long as it is for a good purpose.

In this type of government there are no safeguards.

The majority decides what rights the government can violate and to what end.

As long as enough people believe it is right, anything can become law.

What happens when a new majority takes power? One that believes you have no rights whatsoever? What if they decide where you work, when you work, and what happens with your money?

This may seem extreme, but this is the ideological foundation modern liberalism lays.

It opens the door to this kind of state control.

Surprisingly More Intolerant Than Tolerant…

And even though modern liberalism touts itself as the most tolerant worldview, by nature it is the least.

To illustrate my point, consider this…

Modern liberalism cannot tolerate the existence of a Libertarian community.

Whereas a libertarianism can tolerate the existence of a modern liberal community.

Remember, libertarianism believes that every person as the right to live their lives however they see fit. And the only moral grounds for government is the protection of those rights. Anything beyond that would be a violation of people’s divine rights as individuals.

In a libertarian world, if a group of modern liberals wanted to build a community that socialized healthcare and education, they could – so long as they didn’t force people to be a part of their system.

They could tax themselves heavily to build a robust and strong medical system. They could equalize education by funding it through tax dollars. They could do all the things modern liberals want to do.

And the greater libertarian community wouldn’t care. We would say, “Good for you! I hope it works well. Who knows, maybe I’ll want to join that system!”

But, a modern liberal community could not do the same.

The modern liberal worldview requires that everyone pay into the system. It needs everyone to participate for it to even function.

It doesn’t just want everyone to participate. It needs it.

If everyone isn’t a part of the system, the system can’t work (at least in theory). This is because wealthier people must pay more into the system so that the needier people have equal access.

If it was an “opt in system,” it wouldn’t work because there would be more need than supply. That is the nature of the system.

So, modern liberalism can’t have a group of people “opt out.” If some libertarians said, “No thanks, I want to be responsible for my own healthcare, education, retirement, etc…,” the liberal state couldn’t allow it.

Do you see how liberalism is secretly a very intolerant system? And similar to fascism? Fascism forces the people to obey the government, and the people cannot disagree with it.

In modern liberalism, people are forced to participate in the system – even if you disagree. Where as real liberalism (libertarianism) has no such requirements. As long as you don’t violate another person’s life, you can do whatever you want.

Noble Goals Achieved At Gunpoint Are Not Noble, They Are Wrong

In modern liberalism, good and noble social reforms are achieved at gunpoint.

Some people do not like that language. They think it is too strong. They say, “No, it isn’t by gun point. It is through taxes.”

But let me ask you this…

If I said, “No thank you, I want to pay for my own services. I want to take care of my own retirement (Social Security). I want to handle my own healthcare (ACA, Medicare, Medicaid). And I want to handle my own savings and job security (Unemployment, etc…), so I’m not going to pay those taxes,” what do you think would happen?

At some point the feds would come to collect my taxes.

If I refused to pay ( because I saw it as theft), they would throw me in jail.

If I tried to defend myself (because I saw it as assault), they would draw guns.

And there you have it. Cooperation at gunpoint.

Modern liberalism can’t tolerate true individual freedom.

It is sad because it is a forward looking, hopeful worldview. It believes we can change the world for the better. But it has partnered with the devil to do so.

It forces me to fund charity services with which I may or may not agree.

It forces me to invest in my retirement in a way I may not approve.

It makes me pay into savings and job security in a way that I may not like.

It makes me pay for someone else’s medical expenses.

It assumes it knows best and forces me to play along.

That is not freedom.

That is barbarism wrapped in modern ideals.

That is fascism.

Here’s the definition of fascism once again:

“A way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government”

We may not have a single dictator, but a government built on modern liberalism is dictated by the masses.

Modern liberalism says that it is an advocate for minorities. Racial minorities. Gender minorities. Income minorities.

But it refuses to recognize the smallest minority of all: the individual.

Modern liberalism has ambitious and noble aims.

But I believe that if most people truly understood how modern liberalism achieved these goals… and saw where it could end up… they would be appalled.

There are better ways to achieve social change than through legislated thugary.

I don’t believe anyone wants to force charity at gunpoint.

I believe democrats and liberals want good things for this country.

I would just ask them to look at the system they have adopted. Really look at it. Study its philosophical roots.

And ask themselves: Is this what I really want? Is this how I want to affect change in the world?

So, I ask you… how do you want to change the world? Through freedom and respect for the inherent rights of all? Or through cloaked intolerance that forces people at gunpoint to live by your rules?

Don’t be a fascist. Be a libertarian.

About Sean Edwards

Sean Edwards is an author and a communication strategist. He graduated from the Western Washington University with a bachelor’s degree in history. Sean has a passion for discussing philosophy and American politics.

Believe In America Again

Download my free book to discover the keys to having peace, confidence, and clarity about America’s future.

This book is a MUST read! Sean Edwards is a gifted writer who will not only inform you, but will challenge you and inspire you. It is thoroughly researched, well written and enlightening to say the least. HIGHLY RECOMMEND!!

– Michael Haily, Review

8 Replies

  1. James Curtiss

    OUCH! Good read, Sean. I remain a liberal but do see the need for areas where government should not reach. Thanks again.

  2. Laurie

    Liberalism is a function of Social democracy which is a function of capitalism. Social Democracy is Fascism in disguise. Read Harpal Brar’s Bourgeois Democracy and Fascism, available in PDF form.

    Obama’s health care reform has been exposed as a corporate plan to privatize all healthcare and to eliminate social benefits like medicaid and medicare. The latter is disguised as “medicaid expansion” It’s being done to enrich pharmaceutical investors, medical device investors and insurance investors in this final and most parasitic form of capitalism, Imperialism.

  3. Ole Toustrup

    It was an ok read, with some good points about the arrogance and hostile to thinking outside the box, liberalism can be, but it gets the offset wrong, because the Webster definition of fascism is a perplex simplification. It must have been taken out of contextsomehow. If the article concerned itself with comparing to actual fascism and not whatever this is, then the article loses most of its points. Webster defines fascism as any other simple dictatorship, which was very far from the case. The only thing true is that the gov was in unconditional charge. It gets dishonest, because it cherry picks the parts from fascism that fit and ignores those who does not.
    Looking futher into fascism, than however Webster got that, fascism sprung from the streets of Italy, Spain and in many ways Germany. It was a workingclass (and below) movement, that like socialism, aimed at ending the exploitation of the workers, that capitalism had bestoved upon them.
    After WWI Europe was impoverished and divided, open to introducing ideologies, seeking to better the lives of the exploited. Millions dead to bebefit nobody. For some reason, Anarchism did not get far. Both fascists and socialists hated capitalism, because they saw it as the driver of the exploitation. Also the church was blamed, because it was involved in maintaining then social control.
    But if both socialism and fascism hated and blamed capitalism, what did they fight over ?
    The difference was that the fascists/nazists did not see capitalism, as an evil, that had to be done away with, but could be kept as the driver of society. Fascist and nazists also hated and wanted to do away with democracy, because that had allowed the peoplem to be exploited. The fascist wanted to keep capitalism, but in a form that is hard to explain. A form in which it could not exploit the poor. The ensure tat democracy in traditional form was done away with and power now lay with local subparliaments, in which key personel from unions, production, churches etc was to make the decissions. The sub-parliaments was called “Corporations”. Above the corpotations was the party leader Mussolini and his henchmen, who they could not challenge. This way ruling Italy was taken closer to people and control was shared . It was a everybody in it for the benefit of the nation system, at least on the surface. So the rich could remain rich and in charge of production, aslong as they played along and remained loyal. In short a capitalist system for the benefit of everybody, with one common goal, the benefit of everybody, through the benefit of the nation.
    It however ended with the corporations being of limited power and Mussolini calling all the shots. Limiting power of church and the rich sounds like the wet dream of liberal, but fascism also contained elements, they would reject like rampant sexism, expansionism, xenophobia and exclusion of unwated elements. Fascism is the hardest of all ideologies to explain.
    On the other side also reaching out to the workers was the socialists/communists, who in contrast to fascism, did not accept capitalism and private ownership. Communism asumed multiple form, depending on country and rural or industrial regions. All however failed.
    Is is a misunderstanding that nationalism, expansionism, exclusion and sexism was “hot stuff” in fascism only. They were quite popular issues in communist distatorships too. Quite valuable because it makes the individual feel important and part of something. Most of all in both fascism and socialism emancipated from former abusive strucktures.

  4. Derp

    I’m cool with “at gunpoint” politics. People are too stupid these days to be given free reign to make their own choices.

    1. Sean Edwards

      Some gunpoint politics is necessary (governments need to be able to enforce laws). However, those should only be used to protect individual rights. If they don’t, they become totalitarian. I hope you’re in the first camp…