Leftist Policies and their Rationale
Fools, Frauds and Firebrands (Part 3)
The first article in Jon Sharp’s mini-series, Fools, Frauds and Firebrands outlined the history and structure of the thoughts that permeate much of today’s left-wing thinking. Part 2 considered some practical implications, while this final article considers an alternative Christian structure.
We can see in various policies enacted by various governments in this country some of the outworkings of Marxist policy. There is a clear rationale behind them, guided by the Marxist principles. Consider, for example, the following:
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI): All are equal. This is considered to be the highest good among many in the left. It starts from good Christian principles, as all are created by God and thus are of value to Him. However, taken to the extremes, and forced upon business recruitment, it becomes something of a fantasy – to pretend otherwise is to court disaster wherever applied.
Excess taxation: As with DEI, this, too, is targeted to create material equality, but it is being done to excess, as we are already seeing in the UK. The state has increasingly sought to replace the Christian expectation of care for one another, with its impersonal hand.
Tax is necessary. Excessive taxation, however, is theft by the state. It has the tendency to remove the incentive to work hard for those that create wealth, and therefore reduces the amount of money in the pot for everyone. The removal of the impetus to invest in private property is more codified-envy than any calculation of community benefit, as it leads to overall poverty when the incentive to invest and work hard is removed (as has been proven again and again).
There is also an inherent anti-bourgeois sentiment within this – if you have money then you are regarded as a ‘class enemy’ and an ‘oppressor’, or whatever the terminology of the time fits best. Also, if you have money, then you are seen as possessing power (hegemony), so you’re a threat to the ‘Party’ (i.e. them), and therefore your agency must be reduced. Ultimately, as was expressed at the World Economic Forum, the ultimate aim is that “You will own nothing and you will be happy.”
The removal of the impetus to invest in private property is more codified-envy than any calculation of community benefit.
Inheritance tax (which now also targets family businesses, including farms, albeit at a higher threshold). This is seen as anti-bourgeois, for, in Marxist terms, families are regarded as oppressive hierarchies.
Anti-colonialism: We are currently seeing this being played out in the Chagos Islands furore. While it is unquestionably true that colonialism had both positive and negative aspects, the decisions to erase all vestiges of colonialism stems from the hatred of hegemony, of power in the hands of the elites.
Illegal mass immigration: In the eyes of leftist ideologues, borders come from a belief in national interest, and nation states are viewed as artificial constructs that exist to exert power.
The endorsement of Islamism: This empowers the perceived ‘underdog’ in the class struggle against the resident ‘bourgeois’. As a consequence, criminal acts by radical Muslims are often overlooked.
Euthanasia and abortion: This comes from a materialist view of life, where people have no intrinsic value, and where families are scorned.
Restrictions on free speech: The ultimate rationale of this is to stop the bourgeois gaining agency and power, and to enforce the ‘Party’ line. This includes persecuting perceived ‘enemies’ with false accusations and destroying their ability to speak publicly, thus cancelling their agency.
Digital ID (still happening). The purpose of this is not to stop illegal immigrants (as has been recently initially argued). Rather, it will simply become another tool of control.
Restrictions on free speech ... includes persecuting perceived ‘enemies’ with false accusations and destroying their ability to speak publicly, thus cancelling their agency.
Reducing judicial independence: The proposed reduction in the number of jury trials means that if the authorities (Party operatives) charge you with an offence then you will, by default, be deemed guilty – the only question is in regard to the severity of the punishment.
An alternative Christian structure
“And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” (Matthew 7). It would appear to me that that’s exactly what the Left are doing – building on sand.
Before these words from Jesus comes the well-known Sermon on the Mount. In this discourse, Jesus is describing how we should live:
-
Personal responsibility, moral self-awareness (Matt 7:1-6,7-11);
-
Humility (Matt 7:1-6);
-
Cooperation between people (Matt 7:12);
-
Conflict resolution (Matt 5:21-26);
-
Rejection of foolish ways and false people (Matt 7:6,15-20);
-
Attendance to the Father’s will and His ways (Matt 7:13-14,21-23).
Jesus “taught as one who had authority”. His authority is personal and present.
The original idea behind conservatism is recognising that ways and relationships that have been thrashed out over time should have due respect. (This is not to endorse a particular political party for, although conservatism is associated with the ‘right’ wing of politics, this principle can be promoted or rejected by politicians of any colour.)
It is among such small, local, and organic social groups that people can market their own skills and trade with the commodities of others.
Conservatism is not about inflexibility, but comes from a recognition that human personalities are the centre of all aspects of community, with many different abilities, energies, ambitions. Fruitful relations between people take a long time to work out as we are fallen, and prone to conflict with one another, so we need wholesome common laws and traditions to regulate us, as underpinned by the 10 Commandments (which King Alfred first instituted in British law).
The US Constitution is profoundly human, recognising the need for the containment and channelling of ambition. This was based (as President Trump acknowledged) on the Magna Carta and British parliamentary protocols. The legal system is independent and no-one is above it. Parliament (literally, ‘speaking assembly’) by definition promotes openness and a forum for conflict resolution.
But it is below this, beginning with the smallest household, that it all begins. People have to find a way to become self-sustaining, to marry, have children, to bring-up and educate them, and to work with neighbours in this enterprise. These are the ‘little platoons’ denoted by Edmund Burke: families, neighbourhoods, churches, clubs, workplaces and other local groups, which foster affection, virtue, and civic duty, serving as the foundation of a healthy society.
It is among such small, local, and organic social groups that people can market their own skills and trade with the commodities of others. These, with all their strengths and weaknesses, provide a context for each individual, as well as scope for creativity, energy, initiative and hard work.
Yet despite this, having good laws is important, and is a practical necessity. Authority should be functional in providing structure and organisation.
Onwards
This series of three articles offers no more than a quick review of a pervasive problem. Readers can continue to work out for themselves much of the ideology behind the policies and behaviour of the current (mis)government.
Revolutions can be, at times, peaceful and beneficially transformative.
What makes many people dejected is that so many of the nation’s problems are self-inflicted. Roman statesman and philosopher Cicero made an important observation when he stated: “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.”
This observation shows that internal decay is nothing new. We’ve had it in the past and with God’s grace we’ve recovered. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with revolution; each of our personal Christian conversion experiences was a revolution! Revolutions can be, at times, peaceful and beneficially transformative.
We may not have experienced the economic suicide of the strikes, power cuts, and three-day-weeks of the 70s – these were the outcome of the Marxist-influenced policies of the government of the time. Margaret Thatcher echoed Churchill with the statement: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Her convictions about a healthy economy and community led to a remarkably quick period of growth. She enacted policies that prospered – a revolution in its own way.
(Lord) Christopher Monkton, an advisor, has commented that a senior Civil Servant regarded her Government as being ‘good’ in two ways: being competent and actually wanting good for people.
This is what we need – a government that is both effective and actually desires the very best for its citizens. May that be the aim of every political party that comes into power.
Jon Sharp runs the website knowingthetimes.org.uk
Jon Sharp, 19/02/2026