Ideologies‎ > ‎


Liberals that are totally committed to what they believe can really be quite dangerous with regard to the liberties of the general population. They have a mythical vision of what life could be - if only people cooperated. If they do not agree with their vision and work toward attaining the Utopian ideals of a perfected society ruled by the elite - then they must be coerced into doing so. The truly believe that forcing other people to conform into attaining the elite's vision of a perfected order is in the best interest of everyone. While their may be pockets of resistance to creating a new world order, anyone that does not go along with their plans are considered enemies of the state. The only way to deal with these enemies of the state is to destroy them. Welcome to hell!

Utopia: The perpetual delusion of the left

June 14, 2012
Fred Hutchison,RenewAmerica analyst

 When I was eighteen, I knew that the left is generally deceived. It required afew years to find out what the core delusion was, but many years to appreciatehow radical is the lie they believe and why it leads to so much deception. Theidealism of the left is based upon the romantic delusion that"progress" is inevitable and is leading us to a future utopia. Utopiais a romantic fantasy of a perfect future secular society on earth built by manwith God left out. The cruel delusion of utopia is responsible for many of thetwentieth-century disasters such as brutal dictatorships, major wars, countlessatrocities, and destructive revolutionary movements.

Why is utopia a false hope? Original sin. We are born contaminated by thenature of sin. All parts of our human nature are infected and corrupted. Suchbeings are constitutionally incapable of utopia. Yet, against all reason,experience, and common sense, many hope for an impossible utopia. Perhapsutopia is a substitute for heaven in a post-Christian secular society.

Catastrophic utopias

Attempts at utopia almost always have catastrophic results. Why is this? Utopiasalways turn out to be totalitarian in the end. There are no restraints on thepower or the impulses of the rulers. If man is inherently good, as the leftbelieves, and the revolutionary leaders are god-like beings, as utopian regimesinvariably assert, why restrain their powers?

But man is not good and the leaders are not gods. The practical result of thelack of restraint on leaders is that the pride, self-importance, andself-indulgence of the leaders can be inflated without limit. Extreme pride breedsevil in the form of deadly malice towards all who fail to cooperate.

Totalitarian utopias always, without exception, turn into hells on earth.Witness Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pot Pol, and Saddam Hussein. All of thesedictators sponsored cults of personality that demanded public worship of theleader, all were free from accountability, all had virtually unlimited power,all promised utopia, and all were mass murderers. The murder of thousandsincreased to the murder of millions. Unrestrained evil multiplies withoutlimit. None of these monsters were ashamed of their murders and atrocities. Alltook a surreal utopian pride in their crimes.

The constitutional golden mean

The two forms of hell on earth are anarchy, where the evil of the individual isunrestrained, and dictatorship, where the evil of the dictator is unrestrained.The American constitutional system places the Republic halfway between theseextremes. It is not a utopia and is carefully designed not to be one. TheRepublic enjoys a balanced containment of evil. The Constitution limits thepowers of government so as to restrain tyranny, but leaves enough power intactto somewhat restrain evil practiced by delinquent citizens. Thus, the satanicextremes of evil in high places and personal depravity in humble places can bereduced to a tolerable and livable level. This facilitates a healthy balancebetween freedom and order. The Founding Fathers discovered the "sweetspot" in which both tyranny and anarchy can be avoided. They wisely realizedthat utopia is beyond our reach but the virtue of the golden mean is not.America has bred a moderate and temperate people with an intuitive sense ofbalance. The voters regularly vote out the radicals and those who abuse power.This is not the case in Europe.

Liberals dislike America precisely because it is not a utopia, istemperamentally unsuited to utopian ideas, and cannot become a utopia in itspresent constitutional formation. Liberal judges attempt to dismantle therestrictions of power and the checks and balances that hinder the coming ofutopia. But these restraints are precisely what makes the Constitution so wise.It is what makes life in America so admirable to human reason, so temperate toordinary human hopes, and so amenable to human prosperity.

The little communities led by semi-utopian liberal commissars in academia, themedia, government bureaucracies, the public education establishment, laborunions, and the legal profession are a dismal specter of their designs for thecountry. The mini-utopias of the politically correct regimes of establishmentliberals are halfway houses on the journey to dictatorship because of themandatory group think and the persecution of those who reject thought controltechniques. The semi-utopian element in their thought is precisely whatencourages control freak attitudes to prosper and cult-like group think toflourish.

My disappointed hopes

Throughout my adult life, I was nourished by the recurring hope that the olddelusional fantasy about utopia would collapse one day. Several times, I sawhopeful signs that this might actually happen. But each time, I wasdisappointed. I noticed that during the late sixties, disillusioned Democraticpoliticians stopped talking about "the inevitability of progress."Hubert Humphrey was the last true believer in "progress," I believe,or at least the last one of that era who was "out of the closet." ButI was to be disappointed in my hope that this would be the end of it.

There was the foolish face of Jimmy Carter on TV putting his faith in the U.N.,an embarrassingly inept international society crippled by utopian pretensions.Carter reasoned that if we gave away the Panama Canal, resentment of America inthe Third World would surely fade away and Carter would be loved by thedown-trodden masses of the world. Carter naively supposed that if he wasfriendly to Arafat and Brezhnev, all their meanness would melt away. When theRussians betrayed Carter's trust and invaded Afghanistan, Carter said, "Nomore Mr. Nice guy." He boycotted the Moscow Olympics. "That will showthem." This blow of a limp noodle must have really stung. Repeatedly,Carter took foolish actions based upon an unbelievably naive and simple-minded versionof utopian thinking. My hopes of getting away from utopia were dashed onceagain.

Although Carter professed to be a born-again Christian, he lived in a childlikesoap bubble of utopian New Age fantasy. But underneath the soft surface of thischild-man dwells a bitter and vindictive old kvetch. I have no doubt that if hehad absolute power, he would be very cruel to his opponents. I suppose thatyoung enthusiastic utopians are often destined to become embittered and cruelold men and women. The disillusionments of aging are very hard for the utopianto endure.

My hope for the end of utopias was revived when the Berlin Wall fell and thecaptive nations of Eastern Europe were set free. Surely now, the foolish dreamsof utopian Marxism and socialism would be forever discredited. Indeed, Americaand England pulled back a bit from the road to socialism during the 80's. Butmost countries did not. In the meantime, a fresh batch of utopian feministnonsense was boiling over on the stove.

Feminist utopianism

Lynndie English, a private in the American Army, was put on trial for sadisticatrocities against Iraqi prisoners. She is a product of the delusions offeminist utopianism. Let us listen to her words:

"Oursis a revolutionary age, enamored with the notion that completing humanity'slong journey to perfect freedom requires only that we shed old restraints. Fromthe overthrow of convention — comes liberation and beyond liberation comesutopia." (Feminists in Fatigues by AndrewBacevich, the American Conservative, 9/13/04)

There are several variations of utopian feminism. Lynndie'sversion is a mix of the nihilism of the sexual revolution and New Age claptrap.John Lennon could have written about Lynndie's sexual utopia as a footnote tohis song "Imagine," which is about a dream of one-world solidarity,of people without governments, without religion, and without sexual restraints.Lennon's vision would start with an orgy and lead to a hell-on-earth anarchy —like what prevailed in Lynndie's jail.

The old totalitarian utopias turned those with power into monsters. Thefeminist utopia can turn ordinary women like Lynndie into perverted sexualpredators because it deludes them into thinking that casting off all sexual restraintsand conventions is the way to utopia. It is much like the foolish men who visitbrothels hoping for sensual paradise and emerge realizing that they havevisited a hell on earth.

Lynndie felt that she had to prove that she could do everything the bad boyscould do and that her feminine inhibitions must not deter her from the mostshocking behavior. Well, history has been full of gun-molls, dragon ladies,predatory prostitutes, and Mata Haris, but it did not glorify them as being"liberated" in the romantic utopian sense. Utopian fantasies canglorify the vilest things.

The perpetually reinvented left

"The left has been beginning over again since the French Revolution.And over and over again...Can there be decent leftists? Yes. But can a decentleft be reincarnated from the dark history of the last 200 years? Probably not.And if it has to begin again — why not give it up and save the world anothercentury of grief?"
 But theleft is not about to give up its dream of imposing utopia on the rest of us,despite our wishes. So says ex-leftist David Horowitz in Left Illusions, as quotedand paraphrased inInsight magazine(February 3-16, 2004).

The perpetual reinventing ofleft-wing utopias that Horowitz describes leads to me to suspect that the leftin some form or other will be with us for the duration of the Republic. Some deeppsychic disorder in Western man of the post-Christian, post-romantic era seemsto be incurable. A friend I see at conferences tells me that he is a"futilitarian." The liberals will never go away. The conservativesmust perpetually remain at their posts defending the liberty and order of theRepublic against the howling wolves stricken with utopian madness.

In "A Radical's Disenchantment,"
 in the The Nation, Dec. 8,1979, Horowitz said, "Aboveall, the left is trapped in its own romantic vision, a vision which preventedit from seeing itself clearly and from grasping the fact that its mostcherished notions bore no relation to reality. This moral and political myopiais compounded by the left's inability to accept responsibility for its own actsand commitments."

The utopian vision seems to have three fatal effects on the star-struckleftist: 1) a divorce from reality, 2) a moral free-pass for oneself and one'sfellow travelers on the journey, and 3) a demonization of persons, entities,and states which block the way to utopia.

A divorce from reality

If we are on the road to utopia, all the experience of life will be definedaccording to this journey. But since utopia is a figment of the leftistimagination, no such journey exists. Therefore, the journey of life will beperpetually misconstrued by the leftist.

Part of the divorce from reality is a moral free-pass for oneself and one'spartisan friends. If we are on the shining yellow-brick road to the emeraldcity of Oz, an inflated moral splendor is imputed to all we say and do.

"Comrades, we have finally been liberated from the boring bourgeoisMunchkin land. We are noble pilgrims going to the emerald city of utopia. Whatwonderful people we are!" The comrades chant, "How great we areindeed, indeed..."

"However, the lions, tigers, and bears in the woods near the road arescary. They might try to stop us from progressing in our trip to the fabled Oz.Watch out for those scary conservatives, Christians, and moralists. They aretroglodyte trolls, one and all."

(Time passes) "Wow! We are finally in Oz, the great and glorious. Wait!The iron doors are closing behind us! Where are those frowning guards takingus? I thought Oz had the answer to all our problems." One of the frowningguards smiles slightly. "Don't worry. We have the answer for troublesomeupstart nags like you." Silence falls. After a while, one timidly asks,"Guard, what is a gulag?" The guard's faint smile returns once more.Darkness falls on Oz.

The semi-utopians

There is a difference between the utopian radical leftists and the semi-utopianliberals. The utopians want to destroy the present establishment to usher inthe utopia. The semi-utopians advocate gradual change. They want to place us onthe yellow brick road. They are planning for a long journey to Oz. The FabianSociety of England were prototypical semi-utopians. Their program was to movetowards socialism through gradual degrees. The American phrase for this is"creeping socialism."

Woodrow Wilson is the father of the semi-utopian Democrats. His foreign policyidealism is well known. But his semi-utopian domestic policy is not. BiographerH. W. Brands studied Wilson's writings during his twenty years as an academicsemi-utopian (Woodrow Wilson,
 by H. W.Brands). Wilson was opposed to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill ofRights because they speak of universal unchanging human rights. Wilsonsubscribed to the historicism of Hegel, the same Hegel who inspired Marx.Historicism is the belief that all categories, truths, and values are relativeand historically determined and can be understood only in their historicalcontext. Hegel's historicism is utopian. It involves a constantly evolvinghuman nature and forces of history which are moving us gradually towardsutopia. Wilson saw the human rights in our founding documents as only one stagein a long development.

Wilson is the prototype of theactivist judge who has contempt for the founding documents and sees humanrights as an infinitely expanding force. They grow and evolve and are oftenredefined over the passage of time. Wilson hated the constitutional brakes ongovernmental power because he dreamed of a continuous expansion in the role ofgovernment without limits. But governmental growth without limits is not ajourney to paradise. It is a developmental concentration camp.

Did Wilson live in a state of unreality? Yes. Wilson regarded himself as the"embodiment of humanity," according to Brands. In his speeches,Wilson often claimed to speak for the peoples of the world. He saw himself asthe "mediator between humanity and its own future." In his own mind,Wilson was a visionary leader, and a "tribune of humanity." Americandemocracy under his leadership was a "beacon for the progress of allnations," and the embodiment of righteousness. Anyone who resisted Americaunder his leadership was resisting the "forces of history." (See

 The Perils of Progress, a bookreview of Brand's WoodrowWilson by RonaldJ. Pestrino, in ClaremontReview of Books, for thesources of these insights.)

But Wilson was not a mad man. He was a heady semi-utopian philosopher. Heborrowed the ideas about the leader of a state becoming the repository of the"general will" from Rousseau and Hegel. Hegel articulated how avisionary head of state could be the "vanguard of history."Interestingly, the Communists claimed that honor for their own leaders.

Wilson was the spiritual father to modern liberal Democrats and stepfather tothe postmodern liberals. The modern liberal Democrat was more dreamy-eyed andless pugnacious than is the postmodern liberal. The postmodern liberal placesmore emphasis on throwing off personal restraints, but both agree that oldconstitutional and moral restraints are no longer relevant. The postmodernliberal is more preoccupied with saying nasty things about the troglodytes, butboth agree that their opponents are troglodytes. Both are self-righteous andself-justifying. The old progressives like Wilson are more godlike in theirpretensions. The postmoderns like Michael Moore are more narcissistic andchildlike. But both believe in Oz.

If a semi-utopian political leader of either camp got enough unrestricted powerand experienced a grandiose narcissistic inflation of ego, he might think thatutopia has been realized. He might indulge his delusions of paranoia and placethe troglodytes and the munchkins in the gulag. "We cannot have ourpristine utopia ruined by ideological undesirables and uncooperative primitiveswalking about." Subsequently. the rest of the people would be assigned theirplace in the totalitarian socialist machine. Then the exalted demigodleader/savior would congratulate himself for liberating the people from thehorrible troglodytes and munchkins and for bringing the rest of the people intothe glorious worker's paradise. "No groaning will be tolerated inparadise!"

I first became acquainted with Fred Hutchison inDecember 2003, when he contacted me about an article he was interested inwriting for RenewAmerica about Alan Keyes. From that auspicious moment untilGod took him a little more than six years later, we published over 200 ofFred's incomparable essays — usually on some vital aspect of the modern"culture war," written with wit and disarming logic from Fred'sbrilliant perspective of history, philosophy, science, and scripture.

It was obvious to me from the beginning that Fred was in a class by himself amongAmerican conservative writers, and I was honored to feature his insights at RA.

I greatly miss Fred, who died of a brain tumor on August 10, 2010. What agentle — yet profoundly powerful — voice of reason and godly truth! I'mdelighted to see his remarkable essays on the history of conservatism broughttogether in a masterfully-edited volume by Julie Klusty.
 Restoring History is awonderful tribute to a truly great man.

The following video reveals the extent to which the Utopian world order has succeeded so far in the development of the United Nations.

Global Utopianism