The Fine Marxist Art of Demonization

We generally come up with our own commentary here at HazZzMat. But Instapundit has strung some good stuff together today, incorporating other commentary and stringing together some useful links connecting Marxism, religious fanaticism, and, of course, that gift that keeps on giving, the forging of the "global warming" dogma.

Instapundit's (Glenn Reynolds') entry starts out by referencing Jonah Goldberg's thoughts on longtime idiotarian columnist Ellen Goodman. Goodman, whom the Washington Post thankfully dropped as a columnist sometime ago, casually compares people like Wonker, who aren't buying into the "global warming" hype, to, you guessed it, Holocaust deniers. Here's the Goodman clip:

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

Goldberg replies:

No, Ellen. Let's not just say that. Denying that the industrialized mass-murder of millions actually happened isn't really quite the same thing as refusing to believe global warming is real. I believe global warming is real, by the way. But people who "deny" — a bad word to begin with — that global warming is real are unpersuaded by media hype and the constantly moving goal posts of a funding-hungry scientific community.

He continues:

People who deny the Holocaust happened tend to be the kinds of people who are actually sympathetic with the perpetrators of the Holocaust. They tend to enjoy poking Jews in the eye with taunts and smirks. I know people who don't believe global warming is happening and let me just say they aren't the same people and to equate them with Holocaust deniers is a reprehensible attempt to dehumanize opponents in an argument.

First, we have, of course, the game of false moral equivalence in this casual slander, which we'll get to in a moment. But also in play here is Goodman's casual mis-use of the term "deny."

There are actually very few who deny that many parts of the globe do seem to be getting a bit warmer. (There's more ice in Antarctica, however. Go figure.) But how much of this is due to the earth's neverending cycles of warming and cooling and how much (a fraction at best) is being goosed by human activity is a legitimate topic. But by grouping all shades of disagreement with the current, leftist-led "global warming" party line, (i.e., Bush did it), into a falsely unified category of "deniers" is intellectually dishonest. Of course that's something that never bothers those glibly superior beings on the left.

But matters get even more profoundly disturbing. Glenn continues to play the ball by referencing a dead-on observation by Arnold Kling. What "disturbs" Kling about liberals (whom we in HazZzMat choose to more accurately label "leftists"):

...is that they are issuing rhetorical put-downs as a substitute for laying out an alternative and thinking through its consequences. Unfortunately, this is an all-to-typical modus operandi.

Now isn't this just one of the things we've been harping on in HazZzMat since we founded it over a year ago? The left never has an actual argument against a conservative or libertarian idea. They, and their media helpers, find it much more easy to demonize and belittle than to engage. This is the classic Stalinist tactic of "denunciation," American-style.

It's a cheap, sleazy weapon, but it's proved alarmingly successful over many, many years. It's also why the left has become so shallow. For generations, they've only had to denounce, not engage in argumentation, in order to win a debate. So they've become intellectually lazy, and now issue their casual slanders and denunciations more to gain cooing admiration from their fellow leftists than they do to win a political battle. For them, looking good has become far more important than doing good. In truth, they generally don't have a clue as to what they're talking about. (And this goes double for the Hollywood left.)

But there's yet another interesting element lying just beneath the surface of leftist cant and propaganda. Even mentioning it will drive a leftist into paroxysms of rage. But Kling talks about it anyway as an extension of his comments on Goodman, re: "global warming":

The Left's religion often comes dressed up as science. Marxism is one example. The eugenics movement of the early twentieth century is another. The Global Warming crusade is probably another.

Since Marxism is indeed a secular religion, it, like traditional religion, bases its faith on dogma. Marx and Lenin are the prophets and primary sources of revealed truth in this religion. But, since it is a secular religion, new dogmas and sacraments can be established whenever they prove convenient, since truth, being malleable, is redefined whenever it is convenient, moving the goal posts continually forward in an evolving dialectic. Coming full circle, Kling fully understands that "global warming" has thus moved from its earlier status as a debatable scientific theory into the realm of a revealed truth.

A practicing Catholic might agree with an atheistic scientist that one's belief that Christ rose from the dead is irrational. But for that Catholic, it's an article of faith, and he has chosen to believe it. Nothing will shake him from that belief. Not even the potential for scientific disproof.

Likewise, "global warming" has now been transformed into an equivalent, sacred truth by practicing leftists. The real goal of their party leaders is to transform a cyclical phenomenon into a "scientific" truth (as articulated by the Party) that can be used as a weapon to force capitalist America into a disadvantageous economic situation that could lead to its defeat. But most practicing leftists, Goodman included, see in reality only a surface phenomenon that can be exploited, allowing them to pose as all-good (liberals) who are fighting for all of humanity against the evil ones (Bush, the Republicans, and Exxon), to "save the planet."

This kind of stuff is really getting out of control. But every time a commentator, pundit, or scientist tries to pull real scientific theory back from the brink of sensationalism, he's denounced, slandered, demonized, and shunned. And can damn well get bumped off the tenure track if he's a junior academics.

Ultimately, it's small wonder that "everyone" agrees that humans in general and the U.S. in particular are 100% responsible for "global warming." But the real reason everyone agrees is that it's far, far too dangerous not to.

Glenn Reynolds, who, like Goldberg, actually agrees on some level that the globe is getting a bit warmer, has this interesting take, with which we'll wrap this up. For now.

...we should probably be acting as if global warming theories are true regardless -- but acting as if isn't the same as crushing all dissent. And I can't help but feel that for people like Goodman, getting to compare people you disagree with to holocaust deniers is the main point, and global warming is just the excuse. Don't want me to get that impression? Don't act that way, then.

(Parens are Glenn's, bold is courtesy of HazZzMat.)