Warning: This is probably about the most offensive partisan post I've written to date. I will try to state it as respectfully as possible, but I expect the implication itself will be profoundly offensive to liberals. If you are offended by such things, you might want to move along. Thank you, and apologies.

Recap: Starting as a centrist, confused by the impression that those to the "right" of me often offered convincing arguments, while those to the "left" of me typically seemed merely to change the topic by various means, including emotional explosions, I've increasingly become more "conservative" in my views, while struggling to try to understand what actually motivates those to the left of me.

As a Christian who is becoming increasingly politically 'conservative', I take an interest in the arguments of other self-described Christians who veer leftwards. Taking serious consideration of the arguments of your opponents is a good way to double-check your own thinking. Certainly, a sincere Christian could end up voting for nearly any conceivable party. But the more interesting and useful question is to what degree the bible can be conscripted, without torturing the meaning of the text, to support "liberal" positions. (Or "conservative" ones, but since that seems obvious to me, and doesn't challenge me, it's not as interesting or useful to ponder.)

In trying to research that question I've encountered a lot of people who call themselves "Christians" but seem to be professing belief in a dead, distant, disinterested god. To take an obvious example, there's John Spong, who believes "God" is impersonal -- that is, has no will, consciousness, etc. Basicly, his position is closer to atheism or pantheism. I'm not quarrelling with his convictions -- each man is more than entitled to his own -- but it's quite dishonest to use the word "Christianity" to market such a belief. If he were selling butter or milk that way, the FDA would shut him down in a heartbeat.

In my experience, these people inevitably hold left-leaning positions.

I'd long noticed that secular leftists and most "angry" atheists seemed, deep down, to actually believe God existed. For example, an "atheist" friend of mine in college railed constantly against God, even calling himself "the antichrist" at one point. I pointed out to him he wasn't an atheist, because you can't have anger towards an object you are convinced doesn't exist.

John Ray for a while said something similar: that leftism arose from a fear God might exist. I could see that argument might be true of a certain contingent.

If so, then what? We have a movement composed in part of alleged theists who are really atheists, and alleged atheists who are really theists. That's a really fascinating observation. (Again, among the "followers" you'll certainly get all types. But I'm talking more about those who actively lead or defend.)

Meanwhile, on this side of the fence, I'm under the impression I'm fairly well convinced of God's existence, and I would end up voting similarly to John Ray (if we lived in the same country), who is, I gather, similarly deeply convinced of God's non-existence.

Another interesting puzzle for me is the left's apparent affinity for extremist flavors of Islam. Many of the characteristics they fear and hate (rightly or wrongly) in Western Christians -- rejection of moral relativism, belief there is only one way to God, patriarchy, and the imputation that Western Christians are trying to impose a political theocracy -- occur even more strongly in Islam. Yet leftists are often found in a quivering apoplectic rage about the former but are ... strangely mute ... regarding the latter.

I'm certainly no expert, but I've read enough of the Qu'ran, and know enough of what Islamic scholars say to understand that Islam does entail a genuine call to jihad -- meaning not just the inward moral struggle (the "greater" jihad) but also the outward, physical one.

But I also know enough to gather that the extremist Wahibiist interpretation -- that Sunni and Shi'a are kufir (infidels) -- and that taking civilian lives in the manner many Islamic terrorists, are positions far removed from the long-term historical understanding Islam. And I can see that many purported Islamic leaders -- Arafat, Saddam, or the mullahs of Iran, for example -- are no truer to Islam than the medieval popes or John Spong are to biblical Christianity.

So perhaps we have fake Muslims, too.

And yet these are invariably the Muslims to which the left here gives aid -- either directly or indirectly. Perhaps leftists like Edward Said understand or recognize this duplicity at a subliminal level, and recognize and receive them as their own.

And of course, it's my impression that people simply love lies. We love lies far more than we love truth. (If you doubt me, try correcting a friend who mailed out an urban legend to all his friends, and see if he's as enthusiastic about forwarding the true information. It will not be forwarded, trust me.) This is the basic dynamic which puts every strong leader into power. We instinctively understand he lies to us, and we love him for that reason.

So what do we have here? An alliance of fake Muslims, fake Christians, and fake atheists, and their unwitting dupes?

I suppose we could take this even further.

Many "socialists" I have become aquainted with insist the Soviet Union was never a true socialist country -- and not because it was tried and failed. It was left untried -- the USSR's "socialists" were fake. Yet the "left" of that era never repudiated them as being false. So, what, we had fake socialists too, also supported by the Western "left"?

Let's go further still: Conservatives like myself -- even if we get stuck voting for big-gov't Republicans like W, favor a small state. Liberals, if you recall, never worried about the deficit and favored growing government as much as possible. Lately, there's been some flopping by liberals, to now favor -- at least in theory -- fiscal conservatism. At least as long as George is spending. :-)

In doing so, both positions are revealed as fraud.

And, as John Ray likes to point out, there's the position on race. Leftists of the early 20th century were notorious racists. Eugenics was entirely a child of the left. The Democratic Party was the political wing of the KKK. Now, leftists purport to be against racism -- and even insist there's no such thing as race -- while also insisting we sort and count people by race, and offer different standards and requirements according to your skin color.

Total political chameleons on both these issues.

Doubt me? Two words: Robert Byrd.

So what does this all mean?

Perhaps there is no political "left". Perhaps all we have are a lose confederation of hypocrites and fakers and their followers, deceived or self-deceived to various degrees. Perhaps this amorophous amoeba has wandered through history, reshaping and working around any political obstacle in it's way -- at one moment, supporting one position (say, extreme patriarchy -- to the detriment of the loving ideal of the one-man/one-woman nuclear family) at the next moment, supporting the opposite (say, extreme feminism, to the same effect).

And what true, core position would unite these folk? The real motivation would be will to power, of course, and, for their followers, the desire to be told what you want to hear. A mutually unhealthy co-dependent relationship.

And, also of course, why not have some of them be fake conservatives too? Perhaps that's precisely the case. It would explain why guys like Arlen Specter and Trent Lott have always seemed uninterested in pleasing real conservatives or enacting real conservative positions.

I don't know if all of that's true, but it's certainly an intriguing idea.