Why the Left Cannot Possibly Deliver on Utopia

 “For my people have hewed out…broken cisterns that can hold no water.” – Jeremiah 2:13 

This paper rejects the rational validity of mindless naysaying.  Opponents to a given Presidential candidate are intellectually obligated to name specific reasons why their alternative choice is superior to the former.  This challenge aligns with the investigational path Charles Darwin employed in correlating his data with the thesis of his work, On the Origin of Species, where he conceded that if his views didn’t account for factual reality, his “theory would absolutely break down .”[1]  Consequently, the stakes for the choices about to be made will be greater than wounded, or ecstatic pride; but either good or dreadful concrete consequences.  Each person will reap what the majority in actuality will sow (Gal. 6:7).    

At the outset I want you to note that I am not pitting persons against each other as though some people are innately morally superior to others.  To do that would be to embrace a common ploy of the Left, which habitually dismisses conservatives with their assertion that our views are rooted in a spirit of “hatred” against certain groups of people.  My skepticism of Leftism instead is grounded on assessing the recent (d)evolution, the internal (il)logic, and the current trajectory of the Democrat platform in view of their “promises” for the future that they hold before their followers.

The word “utopia” means “an imagined perfect location” in that such a place has never actually existed with the exception (I argue) of creation prior to Adam and Eve’s fall into sin (Gen. 1:31; 2:16-17).  “Utopia” fittingly describes that “vision” which leftists hold out as both their impetus and the goal towards which they are pushing our society today.  It is on the one hand an utterly obscure vision of the future for the reason that it is nothing more than an anti-vision that consists merely of destroying present realities instead of creating new ones.  In any case it can lead only to chaos.  For both antifa and their toppling of images of the past (statues of forefathers, etc.), and the present practical Democrat platform of “anything but Trump,” a crisply-clear plan for the future is nowhere laid bare.  To the obvious question of how I can possibly associate anarchist thugs with the Democrat party, I reply by highlighting the correlation between Democrat mayors and associates whose solemn obligations are to protect their people, and the actuality of the states of affairs on their very own “streets.”  Notice for example that their charge to oversee well-armed police forces, ironically issues in riotous thugs, ram-paging unopposed precisely for the reason that the hands of the police have been persistently tied behind their backs, figuratively speaking.  Conservative critics are not obligated to psychoanalyze the motives of the former in order to establish that the failure of Democrat leaders to empower, let alone encourage, police to put down such rampages establishes their tacit approval of 14 billion dollars[2] “worth” of destruction plus the death of innocents.  Since, furthermore, no denials of such charges have been issued, it is far-from-safe[3] to conclude that the video cameras do not lie by their exposure that the streets Biden will “build” will not be “paved with gold!”  Yet the bottom line is that this devolution of the Democrat platform extends farther back than Antifa, but all the way to that rebellion which preceded “Adam’s” Fall when Satan defied God’s authority prior to creation (Isaiah 14:12, Luke 10:15,18).  Quite apart from citing biblical texts however, one obvious foundational contention in our day is over whether authority is to be derived from God, or whether it is to be dug out from within one’s own gut.[4]   

---

[1] A Facsimile of the First Edition. (Harvard, 1964), p. 189.

[2] Fox and Friends. Fox News.  09/17/2020.

[3] This phrasing is deliberate.

[4] As for our republican democracy, John Adams stated, “Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to the governance of another.” (“National Archives.gov. Founders.gov.  From John Adams to the Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1789).