The Cultification of the American Left: An Inquiry

By D.L. Adams (July 2017)

The purpose of this inquiry is to explain and support the contention that the American political Left is now a Utopian political cult.


Because of its conversion into a cult, the Left viewpoint and its public and official organization, the Democratic party, are no longer politically viable. It will be shown that the cultification of the Democratic party, one of the two leading political parties in the United States, is one of the greatest disasters in American political and cultural history. more>>>


10 Responses

  1. Should be shared and read widely – a very cogent explanation of the irrationality of the progressive left. Very quotable too. Bravo Mr. Adams.

  2. Excellent analysis. Sadly, the leftist cult members who most need to absorb this won’t grasp the concept

  3. Well done.
    It is time to buy stock in guillotine company.
    I have watched politics for 60 years, and what we have now is unprecedented.

  4. Surely the author jests in conflating the left with the Democratic Party….? The DP continues to be pro Watt St., pro corporations, largely anti-environment, pro globalization —all the things that are anathema to the real left. Obama and Clinton proved to be faithful to neo liberalism and capitalism. Anyone who follows the various leftist blogs (counterpunch, Democracy Now, alternet, truthdig,et al ad nauseum) would have seen their virulent and regular attacks on Clinton throughout the campaign. I suppose that the Democratic reliance on social justice issues is what earns them the label of leftist but that is absurd. Now, the Sanderistas and independents and people like myself continue to reject the Democrats for their REFUSAL to adopt a universal health care agenda, showing their obeisance to the insurance companies rather than the public. Ralph Nader himself equated the Republicans and Democrats as being essentially indistinguishable on most issues, and unified in support of capitalism. I cannot imagine that the author is so remote and uninformed as to regard the DP as leftist. It is nothing of the sort.

  5. Gee, Lorna, why would you use ad hominem comments towards a fellow author in the same journal in which your work appears? I suppose this is your version of Leftist bridge building.

  6. For “C”: The term “ad hominem” refers to a living person. My comment (“remote and uninformed”) referred to the written article and was not a personal attack. I found it interesting to be criticized for expressing an opinion of someone’s views; this was the practice of the left quite regularly, as I discovered when I was critical of the left myself. I suggest that C make an effort to distinguish between opinions and the individual expressing them.

  7. Lorna, you said that your comments could not be ad hominem because ad hominem refers to a living person and that your comments referred to the article. I’ve quoted you below. Clearly your comments are directed to the author, who is a living person rather than the article as you claim.

    >> I cannot imagine that the author is so remote and uninformed >>

    I can assure you, having read the piece myself (and yours), that the likelihood of you being correct is ZERO.

  8. Let’s cut to the chase, please. When one refers to an author that one has never met and doesn’t know, it is clearly a reference to what the author has written or said. In this case the written word is the only clue to the author’s opinions, which I found uninformed. There is no distinction in this case. If an author writes something that a reader finds misinformed, it makes no difference whether the reader says “this article is misinformed” or “this author is misinformed”. To say this is ad hominem is a quite unsubtle way of avoiding a substantive argument about the actual CONTENT of the article, which is of course what I was criticizing. You are free to contest my criticism and you do not have to worry about me taking it as a personal attack.

  9. I think that it would be relevant to discuss the connection of the Left as described here and the counter-culture movement of the 1960s. In my view, this is indeed a utopian vision which reflects a kind of eccentric and extreme form of Judeo-Christian morality. It takes the notion of love (love thy neighbor, the stranger, one’s enemy etc.) and the Golden Rule to mean appeasement, cultural relativism, open borders and a refusal to confront or even discuss any ugly Islamic doctrines. As the author correctly implies, it is a kind of militant niceness. But this is nothing new, ex. Quaker pacifists, American isolationists, Neville Chamberlain, Noam Chomsky. As for Islam, what do you think will happen when love and peace meets up with war and hatred?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

New English Review Press is a priceless cultural institution.
                              — Bruce Bawer

The perfect gift for the history lover in your life. Order on Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon, Amazon UK, or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon or Amazon UK or wherever books are sold

Order at Amazon, Amazon UK, or wherever books are sold. 

Order at Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Available at Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Send this to a friend