The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).

The Liberal Manifesto Major Principles

Introduction

The book “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. M.D. is about the psychological basis of the Progressives/Leftists mindset, and human nature and human freedom. Although the book was published in 2006, the Liberal Agenda has become more pronounced and easily understood by the words and deeds of today's “Progressives/Leftists”. All should read this book to understand the liberal mindset and its psychological basis, as stated From the Preface:

“This book is about human nature and human freedom, and the relationship between them. Its contents are an outgrowth of my life-long interest in how the mind works. That interest, beginning at about age twelve, eventually led me to careers in clinical and forensic psychiatry and to the particular access these disciplines provide to human psychology. Disorders of personality have been a special focus of this interest. First in clinical practice and then in forensic evaluations, I have had the opportunity to study the nature of personality and the factors which affect its development. The practice of forensic psychiatry has permitted an especially close look at the manner in which all mental illnesses, including personality disorders, interact with society's rules for acceptable conduct. These rules, both civil and criminal, largely define the domains of human freedom and the conditions that ground social order.

Historically, of course, western ideas about freedom and social order have come from fields quite distant from psychiatry: philosophy, ethics, jurisprudence, history, theology, economics, anthropology, sociology, art and literature, among others. But the workings of the human mind as understood by psychiatry and psychology are necessarily relevant to these disciplines and to the social institutions that arise from them. This book is an attempt to connect mechanisms of the mind to certain economic, social and political conditions, those under which freedom and order may flourish. Although I have made strenuous efforts to follow where reason leads, I have not written this book out of intellectual interest alone. My intent has been more "generative" than that, to use one of Erik Erikson's terms. It has, in fact, grown out of a deep concern for the future of ordered liberty. In their efforts "to form a more perfect Union," America's founding fathers intended, as the Preamble tells us, to establish justice, insure peace, provide for the nation's defense, promote its general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. But the entire twentieth century, and the dawn of the twenty-first, have witnessed modern liberalism's relentless attacks on all of these goals and on all of the principles on which individual liberty and rational social order rest. Although they are strikingly deficient in political substance, these attacks have nevertheless been successful in exploiting the psychological nature of man for socialist purposes. To counter the destructiveness of these attacks requires a clear understanding of the relationship between human psychology and social process. It is my hope that this book makes at least a small contribution to that purpose.“

Chapter 35 has the best explanation of modern Progressives and Leftists political goals and policy agendas that I have ever encountered, as well as the antithesis of Collectivism over Freedom. I have extracted section of the chapter as a basis for what is occurring in America today:

The Liberal Manifesto: Major Principles

The liberal agenda offers a large collection of attitudes, beliefs, values and philosophies that prescribe for individuals and groups certain ways of thinking, feeling, behaving and relating. Government plays a powerful role in this prescription, and the agenda therefore offers a particular kind of relationship between government and the governed. For the late adolescent seeking a better sense of what it means to be an adult and a more explicit understanding of the world he is about to enter, modern liberalism offers the following principles for living.

The citizens of a modern nation state are, in effect, the children of a parental government; they are the members of a very large family with enforceable obligations to each other. These obligations are not defined by traditional, largely individualist western social and religious conventions, nor by mutual consent among individuals based on moral imperatives, but are instead prescribed by liberal intellectuals and politicians through legislation, judicial decisions and the canons of political correctness.
The individual’s relationship to government should resemble his original relationship to his parents, or the fiduciary relationship between guardian and ward, or a combination of the two. The state is a proper source from which to gratify the longings of the people for various forms of surrogate parental care. This care should encompass the entire life span from cradle to grave. It should consist of various forms of economic, social and political assistance, protection and indulgence in every major sector of life. Self-reliance and the role of individual responsibility should be diminished in this society in favor of collective caretaking administered by the state.
This relationship between government and the governed properly diminishes the sovereignty of the individual in favor of the state. As a political entity, the state is superior to the individual and is prior to the individual. Moreover, the individual cannot exist without the state. For these reasons the individual must be subordinate to the state. Any contest between an individual’s claim of authority over himself and his property, on the one hand, and the state’s claim of authority over him and his property, on the other hand, is to be settled in favor of the latter, barring exceptional circumstances.
The people will be better off under the direction of government programs than if they take care of themselves through cooperative arrangements of their own. Because most citizens are not competent to run their own lives effectively they need government guidance to do what is good for them. In the most important sectors of life, government direction by an elite core of social philosophers and engineers is superior to directions the people choose for themselves. Collective remedies coordinated by the state are nearly always preferable to those initiated by individuals on a voluntary basis.
Socialism and its variants with far reaching power vested in centralized government is the proper political foundation for an ordered society. Collectivism is the proper political philosophy for an ordered society. Government coercion is needed to ensure that the activities of the people achieve politically appropriate ends. Extensive use of that power through central planning and regulation will permit the greatest happiness for the greatest The Liberal Mind 241 number of citizens. Traditional property and contract rights and other protections of individual liberty against encroachment by the state must be subordinated to this collective process. Major economic, social and political functions are to be socialized through programs conceived by government planners and administered by government offices.
It is not necessary that a good life be earned through diligent individual effort, voluntary cooperation with others, or conduct consistent with traditional moral values. Instead, a good life is a government entitlement owed to each citizen regardless of the nature and quality of his acts and their usefulness to others. Material assets under the control of the government are to be distributed to those deemed in need of them. Few if any qualifications are required beyond claimed or perceived need, inequality or suffering, and the benefits given away should not have to be repaid. The beneficiaries of government handouts are entitled to them and owe no debt of gratitude to the persons who fund them. They are, however, indebted to government officials for receipt of these benefits and should support their terms in office.
Voluntary cooperation based on the consent of the parties in a transaction is not an especially important ideal and may be overridden by the coercive apparatus of the government. Consent of all parties is not morally or legally necessary to complete a transfer of material assets for welfare purposes or to alter an individual or group’s circumstances in the name of social justice. In fact, collectivist concepts of justice require that redistributions of power and social status as well as material assets should be effected regardless of the objections of those who possessed these goods prior to their transfer to others. In the social arena, no one who desires membership in a social group should be excluded, and those deemed socially disadvantaged should be given preferential legal or political assistance to remedy their plight. In respect to both economic and social situations, prior binding contracts or long held agreements based on tradition may be invalidated by the authority of government. In these cases collectivist definitions of distributive and social justice should override older considerations of earned benefits, just title, freedom of exchange, due process, rights of association and historical precedent.
The natural and acquired inclinations of moral persons to cooperate with each other in a framework of laws governing property rights and contracts are not the primary basis for an orderly society. Rather, a large government regulatory apparatus, analogous to the authority of parents in a family, is needed to exercise control over the citizenry and to ensure that social justice is achieved. Certain economic, social and political goals must be prescribed by enlightened government officials in view of the fact that citizens are not competent to decide such matters for themselves. Judicial activism is a proper mechanism for ensuring that legal disputes over economic, social and political matters are decided in favor of politically approved outcomes. Judicial decisions should not be bound by precedent, by established principles of procedural law, or by strict interpretation of the Constitution. Where legal disputes emerge, court decisions should be determined in accordance with collectivist ideals. Outcomes in social matters should be judged by whether or not they promote material and social equality, aid the disadvantaged, enhance diversity, reduce envy, protect self-esteem and mitigate disparities in social status, among other considerations.
Altruism may be found in some persons and may represent nurturing instincts toward others, a benevolent identification with others, or compassion and empathy for others. But altruism is better understood as a virtue of the state, a socialized function or collective expression of the General Will embodied in government programs. Voluntary acts of compassion and charity by private individuals or groups are always inferior to the welfare activities of the state, cannot be substituted for the state’s welfare machinery, and cannot meet the welfare needs of the people. Massive welfare programs administered by the state at taxpayer expense are necessary to meet the needs of the disadvantaged.
An individual’s destructive actions against himself or others are not primarily the consequence of his personal choices, values, goals or other mental and emotional processes occurring in his own mind, but are instead caused by negative influences impinging upon him from his culture. He should therefore not be held responsible for his bad actions. Rather, he and others should be encouraged to view his actions as the collective fault of a society The Liberal Mind 243 that has in some way oppressed, neglected, deprived or exploited him.
Traditional ideas about the separateness and sovereignty of the individual are invalid. Although he is a physically separate entity, an individual’s political significance derives from his membership in a collective; the collective is the primary economic, social and political unit, not the individual. Rights formerly held to reside in the individual, such as property rights in his person and possessions, are no longer primary but are to be subordinated to the rights of the parental state and its family of citizens. The will of the people as understood by government officials takes precedence over the rights of the individual and may properly displace older ideals of liberty and procedural justice whenever necessary. Claims to personal sovereignty and the right to have a life of one’s own are selfish and therefore morally wrong. Personal sacrifice for the sake of others, mandated by the state and channeled through its collective institutions, is a higher ideal than older individualistic ideals of self-reliance and benefit to others through cooperation or the pursuit of personal goals.
Material subsidies are to be paid to persons designated by the state and based on need, suffering or inequality, not on merit or desert. Reparations to persons deemed by the state to have been wronged may be made by forcible transfers of property from other persons who are assigned responsibility for injuries or disadvantage even though they have personally done no wrong. In general, rights to life, liberty and property enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights should be set aside in favor of whatever collective rights are asserted by the state.
Human nature is highly malleable. Not only can it be molded to accommodate collectivist ideals without contradicting that nature and without adverse consequences, but adherence to collective ideals will improve human nature. Government programs based on social science research can and should alter behavior toward politically approved ends. Liberal insights are superior to traditional conservative beliefs, in part because liberal policy makers are intellectually superior to conservatives and other opponents.
Prescriptions for how to act and how not to act should not be based on the distilled ethical and moral wisdom of the centuries but should instead be decided by liberal intellectuals and promulgated through canons of political correctness or evolved through the creation of alternative life styles in a spirit of cultural diversity. Many behaviors traditionally counted as offensive, immoral or illegal should now be deemed acceptable, including various sexual and aggressive behaviors that are strongly condemned by conservative standards. Behaviors of this type are not to be judged in regard to their moral or ethical implications or by their tendency to disrupt social order, but should instead be explained by the motivations behind them and understood as expressions of human freedom, healthy absence of inhibition, progressive morality, or defensive reactions to adverse social influences. Sexual freedom, in particular, should be given wide latitude among consenting adolescents and adults even if its exercise results in extramarital pregnancies and single parent families, increases the incidence of sexually transmitted disease, violates traditional marriage vows, invades stable unions or destroys family integrity.
Similar considerations apply to the prominence of sexual and aggressive imagery in the media. The possibilities that such imagery might adversely affect social order or indicate a disorder of cultural values should be denied in favor of the idea that its display is an expression of freedom from excessive inhibition. Pornography is not harmful to children; under First Amendment protection, exposure to it should not be restricted. Similarly, established traditions of decency and courtesy are unduly restrictive given modern liberal insights. Traditional courtesies may also be rejected because they support class distinctions that oppose the liberal ideal of social equality.
In general, traditional social ideals, ethical standards and prohibitions of conscience are to be regarded as outmoded, opposed to the evolution of progressive social codes, and not applicable to modern social systems. In fact, there are no objective grounds on which to favor one set of societal arrangements over another. Rules governing human interactions that have evolved over thousands of years and have come to define what is fair and just in human dealings deserve no special respect. Traditional Judeo-Christian moral and ethical codes such as the Golden The Liberal Mind 245 Rule may be rewritten ad libitum in view of insights gained from contemporary relativistic and multicultural constructs. Likewise, traditionally noble sentiments or heroic actions should be regarded as archaic and socially naïve in part because such actions are largely determined by cultural influences.
Traditional moral, ethical and legal codes have not been promulgated for such reasonable purposes as ensuring social order or promoting good will or human happiness, nor have they been based on a rational understanding of human nature and the conditions of human existence. Instead, they are essentially political constructs created for manipulative purposes by persons who seek power over others. Equality before the law, for example, is a fiction even as an ideal and represents an apparently ethical cover for what is in fact the exploitation of certain subgroups such as women and ethnic or racial minorities.
Good character as an embodiment of certain virtues is not an important ideal. Individual dispositions to behave with honesty, integrity, responsibility, self-direction, mutuality and dependability in interactions with others are not to be especially valued or praised. More generally, one should avoid judging the actions of another person based on standards of ethics, morals or virtue. Condemning the behavior of another person on grounds of right and wrong or good and evil is harsh, mean-spirited and judgmental and may diminish self-esteem, but this criticism of others by liberals should not itself be subjected to disapproval because it is needed to achieve social justice. Economic, social or political disadvantages should be sought for as explanations for bad behavior by any definition, and such explanations are to be understood as excuses for that behavior. An individual who commits a bad act should not be held personally responsible for what he does even if he does it with malicious intent. Malicious intent, if present, cannot properly be attributed to the perpetrator himself. An obviously criminal motive, for example, should not be seen as a fault in the offender but as an unfortunate consequence of hardship inflicted upon him in the past or disadvantages suffered in the present. Because such hardship and disadvantage are caused by other persons and other factors, the individual committing the bad act should receive sympathy, not blame. Society’s primary response to such actions should be to treat or rehabilitate offender, not punish him or require him to make restitution for his wrongdoing. Persons who have been disadvantaged should not be held to ordinary legal duties or obligations if such responsibilities would be burdensome to them.
These considerations also apply to alleged good and evil behavior between nations and among religious and ethnic groups, including various types of terrorist acts that inflict devastating injury and death on apparently innocent persons. Moral and ethical judgments about what individuals or groups do on the international scene should be withheld pending further analysis of their motives and the economic, social and political context in which the acts occur. Retaliation, especially of a military type, should not be initiated against terrorists as that will only compound the problem and cause greater destructiveness. Empathy, understanding, negotiation, compromise, concession and appeasement are far more effective in resolving those cultural and other conflicts that are the root causes of the problem. In general, U.S. foreign policy makers should assume that American imperialism and capitalist exploitation of other peoples have been major factors in provoking aggressive acts by other nations or by religious or ethnic groups.
In the interest of social justice, it is the duty of the state to determine which groups or classes of persons suffer from deficits in material security and in social and political status and to cure these deficits through government initiatives. The state should provide benefits to persons of its choosing based on perceived need, or on certain types of inequality, or on past, present or ancestral hardship. Except for considerations of need, inequality and suffering, there are no valid criteria for deciding which benefits a recipient deserves. Neither he nor his actions should be judged on any traditional scale of merit or desert, because moral and cultural relativism properly deconstructs all arguments based on these scales but not arguments based on the state’s perception of need, inequality and suffering. Traditional concepts of merit and desert are themselves unjust, fraudulent and injurious to the sensibilities of those who are unfairly blamed for wrong doing, self-neglect, laziness or other self-defeating tendencies. These tendencies, if present, should not be condemned as weakness, immaturity, irresponsibility or moral turpitude.
More generally, time-honored conceptions of justice as reflected in common sense, ethical philosophy, judicial practice and the history of political thought are invalid (Kekes 1997). It is not true, for example, that a person should be rewarded or punished in proportion to the good or evil he causes. It is also not true that the outcome of a transaction is fair just because the processes that lead to its completion are fair and the decisions made by the parties to the transaction are informed, voluntary and competent. Justice should no longer depend on concepts of desert, earned reward or punishment, moral merit or procedural fairness. Instead, justice must be based on considerations of need, inequality, disadvantage and suffering. An outcome that leaves one or more parties to a transaction in a disadvantaged, unequal, or needy state is unjust by definition. To satisfy need, remove inequality and eliminate and compensate for suffering, it is proper to take economic goods from persons who own them according to older standards of just title and give them to persons or groups now deemed deserving by government officials. It is also proper to lower the social and/or political status of certain persons and elevate the social and political status of certain other persons based on considerations of need, inequality, disadvantage and suffering. Adjustments of this type are proper even if those demoted in their status have not committed any social or political wrongs. The ideal of equalizing disparities in status justifies the realignment.
Traditional ideals of self-determination, self-responsibility and self-reliance are invalid. These concepts are illusory anyway, since the manner in which any one person conducts himself cannot be attributed to particular characteristics that differentiate him from others. What appears to be virtuous effort or moral integrity, for example, is merely a complex result of societal influences expressed through the individual. His own effort, talent, ingenuity, risk taking, persistence, courage or other apparent personal contributions to his success, including those he sustains in the face of hardship, are illusory or derivative. Furthermore, the fruits of an individual’s labors should be shared with others without compensation, because his talents, virtues and abilities are actually collective assets belonging to the population as a whole, and his achievements are more reasonably attributed to the collective process from which he benefits.
Economic activity should to a great extent be carefully controlled by government. Where the means of production are not owned outright by the state, they should be closely regulated despite burdensome administrative costs, interference with prior ownership and contractual agreements, or negative effects on allocation of resources and incentives to economic activity. Adverse effects on the freedom with which individuals can run their economic lives, even when severe, are appropriate concessions to the ideals of government regulation, especially where redistribution of material wealth is concerned. Likewise, the distribution of what is produced should be strongly influenced by government, as should the nature of what is produced, the persons who do the producing, the sale price at which products are offered, and the margins of profit enjoyed at each stage between production and consumption. Consumer goods should also be carefully regulated by the state, and patterns of consumption should be influenced by tax policy. Profits that appear to be earned through free market mechanisms are probably the result of manipulation of the consumer, and high profits should be condemned as obscene. What appears to be voluntary consent by persons employed in manufacturing and other businesses is often illusory and masks exploitation of workers, women, the poor, certain minorities and other disadvantaged classes. Competition at all levels of economic activity, including that arising from innovation, is unduly harsh, demands excessively hard work, and may cause financial and other hardships through job loss, business failure and career change. Comprehensive government protections are needed to mitigate these dangers. It is well known that capitalists and the rich rise to wealth and power on the backs of the poor. The policy that wealth should be passed on to the heirs of one’s choice wrongfully deprives others of material goods to which they are entitled by collectivist principles.
Every individual is born into the world with a legally enforceable obligation to take care of an indefinite number of persons whom he will never meet and with whom he will establish no voluntary association or agreement. He will be entitled to only a portion of the fruits of his own labor, and that percentage will be determined by government policy. Citizenship in a collectivist society properly implies that as soon as an adolescent makes the transition to adulthood, a substantial portion of his time, The Liberal Mind 249 effort and ability becomes rightfully indentured to others. The persons to whom he is obligated will be identified for him by the state according to their membership in a group or class deemed deserving. The more economically productive one is, the greater his liability to others. This system is designed to combat the greed that causes productive persons to want to keep what they earn.
The primary purpose of politics is the creation of an ideal collective society run by a liberal elite committed to a just redistribution of economic, social and political goods. This redistribution is to be achieved along egalitarian lines using the coercive power of the state. Traditional negative rights that protect individual liberty through guarantees of freedom from encroachment by others should not limit the state’s actions and must instead yield to positive rights that guarantee freedom from material need and from disadvantages in social status and political power. Government enforced entitlements are to be the primary means to these ends.
The traditional social institutions of marriage and family are not very important in the dynamics of social process and should yield to progressive alternative lifestyles that emphasize the satisfaction of sexual and relational needs. The traditional bond of marriage is too restrictive and does not allow for more diverse social and sexual experience, including the self-discovery that comes from relating to a variety of partners. An enduring and exclusive sexual relationship with one other person for a lifetime is not an especially valid ideal, nor does it serve to deepen one’s experience of himself and what it means to love another person. Similarly, children do not need parents who are deeply committed to each other or to an intact traditional family consisting of a mother, father and siblings, nor are grandparents, cousins and other extended family members important in the rearing of children. If a child needs attention, love, affection, guidance, protection, training, education, medical care, socialization and acculturation, these needs can be met by daycare facilities, village programs, summer camps, neighbors, sitters, teachers, social workers and other staff in public schools. Moral and ethical values and the family’s racial, ethnic and cultural traditions can be acquired from these and other sources and do not have to be taught by parents or extended family. Finally, traditional religious training instills a narrow, prejudicial and judgmental view of morality and culture and should be replaced by more enlightened secular philosophies, especially those that promote cultural diversity. Morality and ethics should be seen as evolving value systems subject to progressive insights. There are no moral absolutes for human relating, nor is it possible to make a valid argument for the superiority of one moral code over another.

Collectivism over Freedom

Based on these considerations, the question of whether modern liberalism prepares the emerging adult to live in freedom must be answered in the negative. Far from an interest in preparing its children for lives of genuine liberty based on personal autonomy, self-reliance and cooperation by consent, the liberal agenda promotes an uncritical childlike accommodation to the rules, regulations and expropriations essential to the collectivist state and an equally childlike dependency on a society that likens itself to an all embracing family. Mature competence is achieved only with difficulty, if at all, under these conditions. By the very nature of its operations, every government program comes with an increase in the state’s power and a decrease in the domain of individual freedom: the will of government officials is substituted for that of the individual citizen whenever and wherever a government program tells him what he may or may not do. With directives for nearly every conceivable situation, the programs of modern parental government constantly interfere with the individual’s most immediate experience of personal freedom: that of making his own decisions at the countless choice points of daily living. These intrusions undermine his growth to competence by extending the dependency of childhood well into his adult years and even for the duration of his life. More specifically, the collectivist society diminishes the young adult’s opportunities for continued development of autonomy, initiative and industry; subordinates his personal sovereignty to the authority of the collective; and defines him politically by his obligations to the state. In addition, the directives of the modern liberal state dramatically weaken the social, ethical, moral and legal foundations on which stable civil societies are constructed and promote instead varieties of class conflict, ethical relativism, moral laxity and judicial activism. All of these effects undermine both poles of the individual’s bipolar nature and destabilize the social systems in which he must try to orient himself. The ideals of the liberal agenda encroach upon his right to live largely as he chooses, intrude by force into transactions that would otherwise proceed by mutual consent, and subvert the rules for living that are critical to social cooperation.

Illusory Freedom

Of course proponents of the liberal agenda routinely deny these realities and their significance for the lives of the people. Of particular interest in this denial is the liberal claim that the state’s welfare programs not only do not undermine freedom but instead increase it by liberating the individual from the oppressive burdens of his own well being—obtaining adequate food, housing, medical care, child care, retirement security, etc.,—and from certain injustices of political and social inequality. With these burdens lifted from his shoulders by appropriate government programs, it is argued, the citizen of the collectivist society has greater freedom to make a good life for himself.

But this cannot be an authentic freedom. The person liberated from the burdens of adult life is also liberated from the opportunity to grow up. Only by leaving behind the dependency of childhood is it possible to acquire the instrumental and moral competence that provides for one’s material security, grounds adult identity, solidifies adult self-esteem, and generates the strength needed to cope with life’s challenges. Strongly collectivist societies do not permit such growth. Because he is supported, sheltered and supervised by the state, the collectivized citizen can enjoy only the pseudo-freedom of a child at the playground, one whose material well-being, identity and social status are provided to him by his parents whether he acts responsibly or not, usefully or not, cooperatively or not. The well-socialized man cannot construct a life of his own or a self of his own through the limited choices he makes or the limited consequences he takes. He receives passively from government what he need not seek actively by his own industry and cooperation with others. It is this surrender of autonomy, initiative, industry and adult identity that ultimately ties the socialized man-child to the skirts of the maternal state. It is intrinsic to the human condition that genuine competence is achieved only through active struggle with real world difficulties, not passive dependency on the nanny state. Under collectivism, the “autonomy” given to the citizen through government subsidy is a pseudo-autonomy. It is a childlike existence that demeans the recipient as it aggrandizes the state. In a world so managed by government, the individual cannot write his life’s story through free choice and consequence because the state’s rulers write its main plot for him. To play an assigned role is not to live in freedom.

This situation has profound implications for the young person as he graduates from adolescence and enters an adult world. Under the creed of modern liberalism, he is not called to maturity but is instead invited to begin a second childhood. Like the child at play, he is given, or at least promised, ultimate economic, social and political security without having to assume responsibility for himself. The liberal agenda requires him to remain in an artificial environment—the daycare program of the grandiose state—where he need not become an adult, take responsibility for his own welfare, or cooperate with others to achieve what the state will give him for nothing. But this regressive relationship is a Faustian bargain between citizen and government, one that invalidates the newly minted adult’s right to live as he chooses, to accept and learn from the consequences of his actions, to decide the nature of his relatedness to the world according to his ambitions and abilities, and to respect the time-honored rules essential to social order. The state’s rightful duty to create the political conditions essential to ordered liberty is breached in this bargain. The architecture of responsible liberty is sacrificed in modern liberalism’s determination to conscript all persons into a grand socialist collective, a great corps of mutual servants, subjects and surrogate parents under the rule of liberal government.

* * * * *

More information about this book can be viewed at his website The Liberty Mind,. Although the book was published in 2006, the Liberal/Progressive/Leftist Agenda has become more pronounced and easily understood by the words and deeds of today's "Progressives/Leftists" and the Democrat Party. These political goals and policy agendas are antithetical to our American Ideals and should frighten any person who believes in “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. Consequently, it is the duty and responsibility of freedom-loving Americans to actively oppose Progressives and Leftists and the Democrat Party, for the purposes of retaining our freedoms and liberties. This book inspired me to create articles that are extractions from this book. I would suggest that you read these articles in the following order to obtain the essence of this book: