The Benevolent Dictator Syndrome Of The American Left

Everyone grows up reading about dictators and the special cases of “benevolent dictators” and envisions themselves in this situation of power and influence. They envision ultimate power coupled with a good heart and compassion for others. If THEY were in charge, things would sure be different!

This is a wonderful escape from reality and can be healthy. You dream of the ultimate power to correct the ailments of today and ways to recreate it in the way you believe it should be. Everyone wants to be “right”, and the only way to really be right is to have ultimate power over right and wrong.

If they themselves lack the capacity to be benevolent dictators, the draw of someone with a similar vision is very attractive, as long as they seem to have the same ideological philosophy. That is also the trappings of the idealistic philosophy. Ultimate ideological power means that everyone that agrees with you is right, and should be accordingly rewarded. Those that oppose you are then, obviously, wrong, and deserve to be dealt with in the most dominating manner possible. There is no room in the world of the benevolent dictator for dissenting opinions, as there can only be one truth, one right and one vision. All other opinions are then seen as heresy against the benevolent dictator.

All dictators have been seen as “benevolent” to those of the same ideological philosophy. The problem is that it always gets out of hand due to it’s very subjective nature. The “in power” elitist view is that they have the control and power to humanely “assist” the “less fortunate”, as long as they maintain the proper philosophical ideology. The elitist does not have to sacrifice in the least, and they can feel so good about helping others using other people’s time and money. Their elitism in their ideological philosophy is so “right”, humane, and powerful that that alone is the most valuable virtue they possess. It may be the only real asset they believe they possess. But under a benevolent dictator with the same ideology, that is more than enough for them. There is no need to work for a better advantage. They become lazy and easily led.

How can these people live in a world where you must earn what you get and still subject themselves completely to a cause such as this? These people are living in a dream world, searching for the benevolent dictator Utopia. They want to believe so badly that they hold onto their vision even when faced with irrefutable proof that the emperor has no clothes. They believe that by sheer willpower, they can will the chosen benevolent dictator to the great heights they have elevate him to. In their dreamlike reality, that willpower has the ability to make the power of positive thought a reality. It is hard to really despise these people, because they really do mean well. They just happen to place mushy impossible dreams above reality. They simply “hope” for positive and perfect “change”. It is all so abstract, it cannot be presented adequately long term, but they have faith that it is real, true and correct.

They then see all opposition as evil. This is the only “evil” that they believe in. Their ideological philosophy (more of a theology actually) is the only true goodness and light. All other ideology and theology is simply wrong and misguided. They can tolerate other ideologies, as long as they don’t collide with their own. This is why they can tolerate Muslims, as well as other religions that do not impact them at this time. They envision that once the Muslims get to know them, they will understand the perfectness of their ideology and their ultimate power and authority. Muslims can be appeased the same way they do the GLBT, the feminists and the blacks. They believe these groups can, and will, be assimilated into the liberal benevolent dictator collective. After all, it has worked on all other aggrieved groups, leaving the liberal elitists as tolerant masters of the aggrieved on the liberal plantation. Let the commoners deal with the problems they create while the elites live isolated from these problems. They love their protected liberal compounds. That is why they so admire Castro, Chavez and the former Soviet Union.

That is also why they cannot tolerate conservatives and Republicans. That creates a clash of ideological philosophies. Since they are completely correct in every way, those that do not see or comprehend this are the enemy and must be destroyed or converted for their own good, and the good of the benevolent dictatorship. That also, by the way, solidifies their elitist status, which is of ultimate importance.

This is also why they can’t comprehend the arguments of those with a different philosophical ideology. They firmly believe that any person or group that opposes their ideology must be marginalized as quickly and firmly as possible. It doesn’t even matter how that is accomplished. Any means is justified by the end. Opponents deserve no quarter. That is why lies are so quickly believed and sent forward. That is also why when they are proved as lies, they just shrug and continue to believe whatever furthers their cause. They are dreamers, not thinkers. Reality only gets in their way. They think they know their opponents, not by honestly talking to them, but by talking amongst each other about what the opposition thinks.

That is why the news media was so surprised at the choice of Governor Sarah Palin as Senator McCain’s running mate. Her name was in the mix, but they felt she was simply too unacceptable to be sincerely considered because her ideology was so acutely “wrong”. They didn’t think that she would be acceptable to conservatives because they sincerely believed that conservatives think that all women should be at home fixing dinner and taking care of babies. That alone would make a woman totally unacceptable to conservatives. They were bitterly shocked that she was not only accepted by conservatives, but it actually energized them! They were caught so flatfooted and unprepared, that their knee jerk reactions to her only made them appear out of touch and vicious. But those that believe in benevolent dictators have a tendency to be vicious. That is part of the trappings. As they realize they may once again be proven wrong and out of touch, they bet more bitter. But they don’t have God and guns to cling to, all they have is their ideology.

Their pleasant dream of perfection is turning into a nightmare. There is some good that will come out of this. There will be a “surge” in liberal psychiatrists. Liberal psycho analysis positions will flourish! Jobs will be created!

They are like the child that dreams of finding a quarter on the sidewalk. The child holds that shiny new quarter so tight in their clinched fist, hoping against hope that when they awaken it will still be there. They are hoping for “change”, but when they awake, nothing has changed. That shiny quarter was just a pleasant dream. So much for “hope” and “change”. It all seemed so real while they were dreaming. Reality sure throws cold water on half baked dreams when you wake up.

From Wikipedia:

"The benevolent dictator"

The benevolent dictator is a more modern version of the classical “enlightened despot”, being an absolute ruler who exercises his or her political power for the benefit of the people rather than exclusively for his or her own benefit. Like many political classifications, this term suffers from its inherent subjectivity. Such leaders as Napoleon Bonaparte, Anwar Sadat, Kenneth Kaunda, Józef Pilsudski, Ion Antonescu, Miklós Horthy, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and Omar Torrijos have been characterized by their supporters as benevolent dictators. For example some of these people have been democratically elected e.g. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.^[4]

In Spanish, the word dictablanda is sometimes used for a dictatorship conserving some of the liberties and mechanisms of democracy. (The pun is that, in Spanish, dictadura is “dictatorship”, dura is “hard” and blanda is “soft”). Some examples includes Yugoslavia under Tito or Spain under Francisco Franco. This contrasts with democradura (literally “hard democracy”), characterized by full formal democracy alongside limitations on constitutional freedoms and human rights abuses, frequently within the context of a civil conflict or the existence of an insurgency. Governments in Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela have at various times been considered régimes by different critics and opposition groups, not necessarily with an academic or political consensus about the application of the term emerging.