The Low Democrat Ratings and the Liberal Camouflage of the Left
The record-low recent ratings of the Democrat Party are long-overdue and should not come as a surprise for anyone except its most fervent supporters. For decades, the radical socialist elements within the Democrats had been gaining ever-increasing influence over the classically liberal and moderate voices—an influence that culminated during Obama’s and Biden’s presidencies. A major reason for allowing this influence to permeate major government, cultural, and corporate institutions has been the liberal camouflage of the Left.
Dennis Prager remarked:
The greatest reason for the existential threat to America posed by the woke/the progressive/the Left is that liberals vote for them. If liberals voted for their values, the Left-wing destruction of every American institution—the American Medical Association and medical profession generally; the universities, high school and elementary schools; and the military, among many others—could not happen. This is the American tragedy in a nutshell: The Left votes its values. The Right votes its values. Liberals do not vote their values. Liberalism has almost nothing in common with leftism, yet virtually every liberal votes for the Left.
I love fish and can eat salmon in different forms nearly every day. One enchanted evening, my family and I visited our favorite tavern, and I ordered grilled salmon as usual.
“Let me make a suggestion,” intervened the restaurant owner, an eccentric erudite, who had befriended us as loyal patrons, “Why don’t you try the Mahi Mahi instead?”
I love learning etymologies, so I inquired if Mahi Mahi was a Hawaiian word and what it meant.
“Funny you should ask,” he winked, pulling up a chair to join us. “The English word for Mahi Mahi is ‘dolphinfish.’ This is a fish that resembles a dolphin’s shape. It is, of course, a completely different species. This was made crystal clear on restaurant menus—but to no avail. When people saw the word ‘dolphin,’ a red blinking light exploded in their minds. They instantly discarded the ‘fish’ part of the ‘dolphinfish’ and ignored the scientific explanation of why it was a plain old fish.
Children would cry inconsolably. Even adults would wince at the thought of eating the intelligent and friendly mammals. No amount of explaining would persuade customers to order dolphinfish. They began to demonize the restaurants that served it,” our friend continued. “Then restaurant managers came up with a brilliant solution. They called the fish by its original Hawaiian name, Mahi Mahi. Suddenly business boomed, as people began to enjoy this tropical delicacy, and do so to this day.”[*]
When we change the problematic word, the problem magically disappears. When the American Left started calling itself “liberal” and its opponents “fascist,” it managed to manipulate millions regarding the radical nature of its policies.
The historic 2024 elections revealed a political realignment whereby conservatives were joined by classical liberals, libertarians, and a widely represented group of people who simply wanted a return to sanity. It is essential to safeguard and even broaden this coalition in order to secure the preservation of American ideals beyond the next administration.
Linguistic knowledge can help in this effort by clarifying the confusion around key terms such as “left,” “right,” “socialist,” “liberal,” and “conservative.” At the heart of this confusion stands the leftist takeover of liberal terminology. Many people use “liberal” as synonymous with “socialist,” but these two terms denote two rather different, in fact opposite, value systems.
The terms “left” and “right” harken back to the French Revolution, when proponents of the old regime sat on the president’s right in the National Assembly, and supporters of the Revolution on his left. This arrangement changed from time to time. “Left” and “right” make sense historically but can also be confusing, especially when discussed in their perceived radical versions. Communism is frequently termed a radical left-wing ideology, and Nazism a radical right-wing ideology, but these monstrous systems are the two sides of the same coin of totalitarian socialism.
If “right” means authoritarian, and “left”—democratic, then communism should be right-wing as it has eliminated freedom and democracy wherever it has been tried. There are authoritarians and libertarians both “right” and “left” on the spectrum, so this distinction is unhelpful. If “right” means traditional and individualistic, and “left”—radical and collectivist, then national socialism is clearly leftist as it rejects individualism and Western tradition. Fascism and national socialism are collectivist and socialist. Ayn Rand famously noted that “racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.” (p. 179)
When we discuss normal components of Western politics, it makes better sense to distinguish between classically liberal and conservative attitudes. Totalitarian socialist concepts have no place in this normal political dichotomy. “Conservative,” from Latin conservo, “to preserve,” means “preserving tradition,” and “liberal,” from Latin liberalis, means “pertaining to freedom or a free person, generous.”
Both conservatism and liberalism support individual liberty and free enterprise, but conservatism emphasizes tradition, faith, and moral obligation, while liberalism focuses on the freedom to act as we choose as long as we respect the rights of others. Socialism, on the other hand, sacrifices individual rights in the name of some vague public good. Pol Pot cynically remarked regarding the victims of his brutal communist policies: “Since he is of no use anymore, there is no gain if he lives and no loss if he dies.” Once we surrender our innate rights to life, liberty, property, religion, and pursuit of happiness, there is no telling how far a government would go in limiting and eventually eliminating these rights, regardless of how noble its intentions might seem.
Socialism derives from the Latin adjective socialis, which comes from the noun socius, meaning “partner, comrade.” Both Nazis and communists referred to themselves as “(party) comrade.” The term socialism is associated with Henri de Saint-Simon, who advocated shared ownership of resources. He contrasted socialism with the philosophy of liberalism, which focused on innate individual rights. Saint-Simon and other like-minded French writers conceived of socialism as an authoritarian reorganization of society meant to counteract the liberalism of the French Revolution.
Already in 1848, Alexis de Tocqueville eloquently summarized the contrast between liberal democracy and socialism: “Democracy extends the sphere of individual independence, socialism restricts it. Democracy gives all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man an agent, an instrument, a number.” (p. 546, translation mine) The legendary economist F.A. Hayek pinpointed the appropriation of the term “liberal” by the American left:
It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that “liberal” has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. (p. 45)
Reclaiming the term “liberalism” in favor of its original, classical meaning can help expose the illiberal essence of popular leftist policies that are camouflaged under its name. It could deter actual liberals from enabling a socialist agenda to radically transform America and abolish Western tradition. Those who consciously promote this agenda are very few, though disproportionately vociferous. They rely on appropriating positive terminology from the liberal political discourse in order to attract the massive following they unjustly enjoy.
Recognizing the Marxist, socialist, and communist policies that are being trumpeted as liberal is the first step toward their rejection. Raising a widespread awareness of their totalitarian nature could persuade some American liberals to support a political group that better reflects their principles, as it partially happened in the 2024 elections. It could gradually ameliorate the current destructive political climate. It could restore a common-sense equilibrium between classically liberal and conservative viewpoints and ensure a lasting revival of American values.
[*] This has become a popular story among food and nutrition professionals; I later came across different versions of it in online blogs.
Nora D. Clinton is a Research Scholar at the Legal Insurrection Foundation. She was born and raised in Sofia, Bulgaria. She holds a PhD in Classics and has published extensively on ancient documents on stone. In 2020, she authored the popular memoir Quarantine Reflections Across Two Worlds. Nora is a co-founder of two partner charities dedicated to academic cooperation and American values. She lives in Northern Virginia with her husband and son.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY