George the Third was the undisputed King of Great Britain; of that there can be no doubt.  If it is true that pride goeth before a fall, then the King's arrogance cost him his American colonies, and much, much more; George the Third lost his mind as a result of  hubris, and ended up confined in an insane asylum, mad as a March Hare.  This cautionary tale reflects an even greater fall, one which we are in the privileged position of witnessing: the collective mental breakdown of the Liberal Movement. We are witnessing the madness of the postmodern King!

Liberalism has been King for a very long time.  Liberalism has been the driving force in the West since the 18th Century, and gained almost complete ascendancy in the 20th, where it reigned almost unchallenged from the 1930s until the 1980s.  The power of the Left derived from its control of the dissemination of information, and leftsists' understanding of the value of propaganda has always propelled their Kingship. They have come to consider their rule as being by Darwinian Right, and grew smug in their assurance of power.  To their utter amazement, the  reign of the left has come to an end, and like poor King George they are suffering an acute mental breakdown.

What has happened to the Left?  Like Teddy Kennedy, they seem to have driven off the bridge of sanity into the dark waters of madness, becoming incapable of grasping the reality of the world around them.  We see evidence of this everywhere we look these days; from Dan Rather`s insistence that his National Guard documents were valid even though forged, to Senator Joe Biden arguing on Meet the Press to bring Iran in to help with Iraqi reconstruction, to the Democrats' hope for a "Merry Fitzmas", in the deification of Cindy Sheehan, the mad rantings of Dick Durban, and the backstabbing of former President Jimmy Carter.  We see it in the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" comments by John Kerry and by the stubborn refusal to accept that we are actually at war. 

We see it in the refusal of the Left to accept the results of the elections of 2000 and 2004, of their unwillingness to believe they are not in power.  We see it in the standing ovation given by many Democrats to Michael Moore`s insane propaganda, in the "all about Halliburton"/"Bush lied to get us into war" view of Iraq.  We see it in the attempt to equate running the air conditioning at Gitmo with Saddam`s torture chambers. 

There seems to be a refusal among liberals to believe in reality these days.  It is as if an entire segment of the population has lost their collective minds.  Just what is happening?

An entire segment of the population has lost its collective mind.  According to author Phillip K. Dick, reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.  Using this benchmark to judge the sanity of the Left, it becomes apparent that they have, indeed,  lost their cats—eyes and pearly whites.  The modern Liberal is madder than a haberdasher at a Lewis Carroll tea party. 

How did this happen? 

This is the triumph of Postmodern Liberalism.  The Liberalism of our forefathers bears little resemblance to the twisted Frankenstein`s Monster which has taken over the Democratic Party.  The radical left — the ACLU, the NOW gang, NARAL, and the like — began the conquest of the Democrats with McGovern, and now those moonbeam radicals are the mainstream of the Party.  Any Democrat wanting to be successful must bow before the multi—acronymed Postmodernists.

To understand why the radical fringe is so at odds with reality, it is necessary to understand the philosophical underpinnings of what they believe.  There are numerous intellectual influences at the core of the modern Left, and each of these contribute to the final architecture of the asylum that is Liberalism.  We need to look at a few of them to get the general idea.

1. Man Is Inherently Good

Rousseau is the primary originator of the modern version of this belief. This concept is at odds with the Christian worldview, which holds that Man has a fallen nature, and will sink to the level of barbarism if his appetites are not constrained. 

This particular view of mna as originally perfect has a number of consequences; the Anti—Americanism often displayed by the left stems from the belief that our system is corrupting to the individual, and must be destroyed to free Man to realize his potential.  Remember the students chanting "Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ has gotta go!"?  The idea here is that our civilization is at the root of suffering and evil, and by ridding ourselves of it we will be free to be righteous.

Radical Environmentalism is another consequence of this particular concept.  Many Environmentalists believe that a return to a state of nature will be a return to paradise, and they seek to dismantle our industrial society so that Man can be freed of the pollution of Civilization, and can return to a mythical agrarian Eden.  They disagree with Hobbes, who pointed out that life in a state of nature is  "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".  They prefer to believe in a Golden Age, which can return if industrialism is ended.

Socialism, likewise, is an economic philosophy based on the belief in Man's inherent goodness.  The theory is that, if freed from the tyranny of economic self—reliance, the individual will work diligently for the common good, and thus the artificial barriers of class and wealth will disappear.  With the proper social context, the goodness inherent in people will blossom, and the State will wither away as each shares his labor and his means with his neighbor. 

The welfare state is an incremental approach to this, and the fact that we have witnessed disastrous consequences as a result dampens the liberal's enthusiasm nary a wit; the left clings doggedly to this particular bit of folly, in violation of all reason.  I believe it was Ben Franklin who said that the definition of insanity is attempting the same thing over and over, while expecting different results.

2. Atheism/ Materialism

This runs all through the Liberal Movement, and has since the beginning.  We see hints of this in the early Philosophes`, such as Scottish philosopher David Hume's comment

"The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one."

Or these comments by Voltaire;

"You will notice that in all disputes between Christians since the birth of the Church, Rome has always favored the doctrine which most completely subjugated the human mind and annihilated reason.

"Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense."

~ Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, 1764

The German philosopher Frederick Nietzche states

"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty—I call it the one mortal blemish of mankind."

Nietzche was heavily influenced by Darwinism, as was Karl Marx, who modeled his theories on Natural Selection and who sought to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin.  Nietzche was, in turn, the model for the Nazi movement, and the Nazis took their racial ideas from the Eugenics Movement, which was the brainchild of Herbert Spencer, who based his theories on Darwinism and Evolution. (Margaret Sanger was heavily into Eugenics, and purpose of Planned Parenthood, which she founded,  was to "weed out" the less—desirable genetic strains.) 

(As a side note, according to Edward Larson, author of the book Summer of the Gods, it was the rejection of Social Darwinism which lead to the rise of Christian Fundamentalism.)

The common thread was a denial of God and Religion, a belief in the purely material nature of reality.  The pervasive view that "God is dead" and that the material world is all that exists has enormous repercussions in the liberal movement. It is the driving force behind "fairness" and redistribution of wealth, since justice can only be meted out here in this life.  (This is why so many atheists are also socialists.)  It is what drives the hysterical reactions Darwinists have to the suggestion that any competing theory be considered (Darwin I might add, once said; "I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true").  It is the driving force behind the excesses of the ACLU, the drive to remove God from the public forum (just fifteen years ago, who would have thought a child would be expelled from school for reading the Bible?), It is behind the drive to sanction homosexual marriage, and the drive to legalize euthanasia.  It is the motive behind abortion. 

In fact, since there is no God, man must find an adequate substitute.  We have to be gods unto ourselves.  This is accomplished largely through the exercise of power by the State.  We all know that Nazis and Communists worshipped the State, but we seldom consider just why the left is so interested in regulating every aspect of human behavior.  Without the authority of Divine Law, Man is forced to constrain the actions of the individual through force of arms, and that constraint is codified as law.  There appears to be a contradiction here — and there is!  Man is supposed to be good!  He shouldn't need constraint, yet he does, since he has yet to be properly freed from the bondage of civilization and the Church.  (I told you they were nuts!)

The Terri Schiavo case illustrated this perfectly: the Left was energized to force death upon poor Terri in order to uphold the right of the State to exercise authority over life and death. The power of Life and Death is the final step in the usurpation of Divine authority. 

This also explains something which is often puzzling to Conservatives: why the Left is so joyless.  Liberals are amazingly glum, and seem totally devoid of humor or mirth.  Why is that?  Actually, why shouldn't that be the case? The liberal has to act as his own god, and that is a heavy burden, indeed!  Everything depends on his own efforts.  How can one be happy when, like Atlas, one must carry the World upon ones shoulders?  Liberalism is a recipe for despair.

3. Subjective Reality

Human senses are imperfect, and human reason inadequate.  We see reality through a glass darkly, and often project our prejudices and beliefs into what we see.  Because the liberal refuses to accept that there is a God by whom all else is measured, and because the liberal is burdened with an absolute faith in human reason, modern Liberalism has as a tenet the concept that reality is subjective. (That is the only way to reconcile disagreement or errors in judgment with the perfectibility of man and reason.) The Left bases this on Twentieth Century science, particularly Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (which states, roughly, that time is a dimension, and that the measure of an event is relative to the observer) and the development of Quantum Mechanics.  At the Quantum level, it becomes impossible to measure both the position and the energy state of a subatomic particle.  This was codified by Heisenberg  and is known as the Uncertainty Principle.  This was furthered by the studies of electrons which showed that in calculating the probability of an event occurring to the electron (the electron going through hole a or b, both events actually occur simultaneously. In other words, Quantum physics suggests that the Universe splits whenever there is a "choice" to be made because both events happen. One takes us along one path while the other takes us the other way.  (This argument aggravated Erwin Schroedinger, who illustrated what he believed to be the preposterousness of this claim with his famous Cat In The Box.)

Although these theories deal with very unusual circumstances relative to the human condition, liberals incorporated them into their outlook on everyday life.  This, coupled with other sources such as the Biblical admonition to "judge not, lest ye be judged" (remember, many lefties are disaffected believers, and the Left has never had a problem with using Scripture for it's own ends) and a desire to turn against Western Civilization, lead the Left to conclude that reality has no concrete basis, but is ultimately subjective. 

This subjectivity is very convenient to the Liberal, who may then manipulate reality as he sees fit, and may excuse bad or even criminal behavior in his fellow.  It means that society is more malleable, more open to change because those things which constrain change can be done away with.  This is at the core of the concepts of "tolerance" and "diversity".  We can be tolerant of anything except intolerance, which means anyone who believes in a concrete right and wrong.  We must accept diversity, no matter if it be perversity, but we cannot accept those who condemn anything as evil.  We can shut the mouths of those who would speak freely in the interest of  "free speech".  Nothing must be forbidden, except forbiddenness.  It always comes down to the same argument;  "what right have you to judge another person's reality?"

This is why the Courts can create laws out of thin air, rather than accept the constraints dictated by  the Constitution.  This is why Dan Rather can say he believes his story, even though his evidence is faked.  This is why the left can pretend we aren`t at war, since it suits them better to not be.  This is why, against all reason, the news media will believe a Joe Wilson, and why the Libs were joyously awaiting their "Fitzmas" present —  indictments over what they knew was a non—crime.

If you believe hard enough, it will come true.  The Left, much like Dorothy in Oz, need merely click their collective heels three times and chant "there's no place like home" and they will be magically transported to Washington.  This may sound crazy (and it is) but it is not far from their deep—felt views.  Why do leftists keep climbing mountains for these kumbaya moments?  Why do you see "visualize world peace" bumper stickers on the hybrids driven by these granola eaters?  Why do they flock to Michael Moore movies? They have come to believe that, if enough people really believe, it will change reality.  The world is malleable, formed by the collective consciousness.  (Notice, that makes us gods!)  Therefore, if we made it, we can remake it!

These three principles have always colored the views of the Left, but, much like the family who hides their crazy aunt in a closet when guests come, they've succeeded in hiding this insanity, thanks to their control of the news media, education, and their influence in government.  Why haven't we seen this side of them until now?

Because they are losing their control of the dissemination of information, and of the Holy Church of Government.  The new media — talk radio, Fox News, The American Thinker and the rest of the blogopshere —  have broken their control of the electronic leviathan.  They have seen their hopes in Socialism and Communism dashed; they have seen their belief in the United Nations destroyed. The loss of the Presidency, Congress, and the potential loss of the Supreme Court threaten to put the Left out to pasture permanently.  How can they stand that? 

The ability to affect their environment is all they have; they have no heaven waiting in reward, no hope for something outlasting them.  Their only purpose in life is to change the world they live in here and now.  They have lost the ability to do that, and it's causing them to have a collective nervous breakdown.

When George III, King of England, went off of his gilded rocker, his doctor treated him by bodily constraint any time he behaved inappropriately.  It was believed that the King must be forced to bend his will to reality, something he was not used to doing as a result of his exalted position.  The Left must be treated in a similar manner; they must be politically and intellectually restrained until those poor souls regain their grasp on reality. 

It's time for their reign of madness to end!  It's time to put the Mad King away!

Timothy Birdnow publishes Birdblog.