Have you ever wondered what makes people on the left (the “liberals” or “progressives”) do or think what they do and why those on the right (the “conservatives”) do or think the way they do?
Are you to the left or to the right, politically speaking? When did “left” and “right” start being used to describe political parties or political ideologies?
The predominate thinking of left and right divisions points to the French Revolution of 1789-1799. When the seating of the National Assembly took place those who were loyal to religion (i.e., Christianity) and the king were seated to the right of the president and those who supported the revolution sat on the left. When the National Assembly was replaced with a Legislative Assembly in 1791, the “innovators” (revolutionaries) sat on the left, the “moderates” sat in the center and the “conscientious defenders of the constitution” sat on the right.
Burke vs. Paine. The political divisions of left and right became solidified in the ongoing political pamphlet war between Edmund Burke of Britain and Thomas Paine of America during the 1790s. Burke was a conservative while Paine was considered to be more liberal. In 1790 Burke published Reflections on the Revolution in France. Burke was known as a great reformer and many assumed that he would embrace the French Revolution as did intellectuals, radicals and orthodox Britains. However, in Reflections Burke revealed his disdain for the Revolution, which he proclaimed would descend into anarchy, terror and war, which it did.
Burke’s position outraged Paine, who responded with his lengthy pamphlet of 31 articles, The Rights of Man, in 1791. The pamphlet “war” became a literary battle between Burke, the consummate intellectual with a mastery of facts and a deep understanding of the limitations of man versus Paine, known for his hatred of authority in any form, rejecting conventional wisdom and tradition in exchange for re-establishing society and government based on abstract reasoning. While Burke was typical admired by his contemporaries for his integrity and dignity, Paine garnered little admiration, even from his followers. Burke was considered to be the consummate conservative on the “right”, while Paine was looked upon as the ordered radical on the “left”.
The reaction of the left vs. that of the right. Have you noticed that when people on the “left” get upset when things do not go their way they seem motivated to ridicule, demean and dehumanize their opposition? When they really get upset, they vehemently protest, riot, oppose authority, destroy other people’s property and businesses and even injure the innocent or those that serve to protect. In the extreme, they seem to go ballistic; become irrational and are driven by unreasonable and idiotic demands.
People on the “right” on the other hand, when they are upset because things do not go as they hoped for or planned, typically do not demean the opposition, riot, destroy property or threaten the well being of others. They tend not to break the law, but, rather, respect the law to do what is right and constitutional. Their typical form of protest is through the written or spoken word, or by voicing their disappointment or disapproval via the ballot box. They take legal channels to work for change. This may take longer, but their methods do not disrupt or threaten the stability or well being of individuals or society.
Well, I think I have discovered the reason for this great divergence of behavior between the left and the right political and societal factions. In the Bible the wise sage, King Solomon, mused long ago that, “A wise man’s heart is at his right hand, but a fool’s heart at his left” (Ecclesiastes 10:2, NKJV). In the NIV translation of the Bible, the same verse reads thus: “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.” The Amplified version of the Bible states the verse this way: “A wise man’s heart turns him toward the right [which is the way of blessing], but a fool’s heart turns him toward the left [which is the way of condemnation].”
Well, there you have it. The Bible says that those who are on the left are fools, deserving condemnation, while those on the right are wise, deserving of blessing. Oh, I know some will say I am cherry-picking one verse in the Bible to make a point. But, wait there is more.
Sheep vs. Goats. In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25, Jesus makes it clear what God’s Judgment will be like. Starting in verse 31, Jesus stated, “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left” (vss. 31-33). Prior to this chapter, Jesus used the term “sheep” to refer to those He sought to follow Him or those who were following Him. In other words, the sheep are those who would be obedient to His calling.
Jesus’ narrative continues: “Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me’” (vss. 34-36). Jesus points out that it is those on the right that were obedient to God’s will and purpose even though they may not have known it.
“Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me’” (vss. 37-40).
“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (vss. 41-46).
Now you know why people on the “left” have lost their collective minds over the commanding political victories of Republicans on the “right”. The left, which has now become progressively aligned with communist, Marxist views and refuses to oppose radical Islam, no longer represents anything that resembles our Founder’s America. The left has become unhinged, violent and literally insane in their approach to disappointment, defeat or objection to political policy. Those on the “right” still have a strong desire to follow the U.S. Constitution so wisely laid down by America’s Founding Fathers; following legal procedures enshrined for our Republic almost two-and-a-half centuries ago.
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29:2
Addendum. The preceding scripture in Matthew, as my wife so observantly pointed out after my posting, would seem to support the left’s outrage and their compassion for the “stranger” or refugee. But are the majority on the left really concerned about the plight of the refugee? Granted there are some on the left who have genuine compassion for those in need, but they tend to express their concerns in rational, dignified ways. However, it would seem that the vociferous majority on the left (Democrats, progressives, liberal college students, the liberal media, Hollywood types, etc.) have gone ballistic over President Trump’s “temporary” four month ban on immigrants from hostile Mid-Eastern countries. Is their outrage motivated by their compassion for the “refugee” (whom they clearly identify as “Muslim”) or are they motivated by their vitriol hatred of President Trump? I believe it is clearly the latter.
Case in point #1: In 2011, President Obama instituted a similar ban on Iraqi refugees for six months and no one on the left, including our now clearly leftist media, said a peep. No protests, no outrage; nothing. Why is it so unreasonable to those on the left for the President of the United States to implement a temporary ban on refugees from countries that are well known hot spots of Islamic terrorists trying to get to the United States to do us harm? Is not the first duty of the President to defend and protect the safety and well-being of the citizens of America, or are we too conditioned to eight years of a former president who could have cared less about such constitutional responsibilities?
Remember, under Obama, not only did he grant immigration waivers to senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood (known for Islamic terrorism), but he made other MB members part of his administration, including in the Department of Homeland Security.
No, those who are truly leftists are not concerned about the plight of the refugee. They are only concerned about opposing and destroying the Trump presidency. They will be satisfied with nothing less.
Case in point #2: This past weekend in Seattle an unidentified Black Lives Matter speaker who identified herself as a “preschool teacher” (God forbid) went on a hate-filled, vulgar tirade, screaming: We need to start killing people. First off, we need to start killing the White House. The White House must die. The White House, your f—ing White House, your f—ing presidents, they must go! F— the White House. F— white supremacy, f— the U.S. empire, f— your imperialist ass lives. That s— gotta go.
Now, if that were a white person advocating such hate and incitement to do violence during the Obama Whitehouse, she would have been immediately arrested and charged with (at the very least) with a hate crime and, perhaps, with a terroristic threat. However, under the “whiteness” of the Trump administration, the leftist media and Seattle law enforcement did not even give it a nod, but rather a wink of approval.
Case in point #3: On January 29, Jonathan Turley, a well known constitutional law professor at George Washington University School of Law (and a self-professed political liberal) was invited to appear on CNN to explain the constitutionality of President Trump’s Executive Order on the temporary immigration ban. Turley barely got to say a few words when CNN’s “Foreign Political Analyst” (no joke intended), Rula Jebreal, jumped down his throat, screaming at him that the “ban” was racist, white supremacy and “an instrument of tyranny.” Apparently Ms. Jebreal had her eyes and ears closed throughout Obama’s tyrannical presidency. The irrational, leftist Jebreal was so out of control that all Professor Turley could do was shake his head in disbelief at her tirade. CNN host, Fareed Zakaria, of course, did nothing to try to bring her back to earth.
There are other examples far too numerous to bother with in this blog. Suffice it to say that the majority on the left have no interest or intention of meeting the needs of refugees, but, rather are only interested in causing chaos in order to bring down the Trump presidency. I would bet the “farm” that if the ban were for “Christian” refugees you would not hear a peep from anyone on the left.
To the contrary, those on the “right” (largely represented by Christians) have two thousand years of generous, sacrificial history of reaching out to the oppressed, the poor, the stranger, the refugee.
And, a brief review and reminder: Where was the collective outrage from the left and the Obama administration when tens of thousands of Christians were (and are) being slaughtered, tortured, beheaded, thrown from buildings, etc. by Muslim terrorists? Not a peep; not a tear; not a word of objection.