Just days ago, a popular talk radio show host lamented that the attempt on the part of conservatives to fight back against the move to normalize homosexual “marriage” was tantamount to the attempt to fight back the tides of the ocean.

Though he didn’t say it, he may as well have said that it is as impossible to resist most of the left’s whole agenda as it is impossible to resist any force of nature.

And maybe he would have been correct.

Perhaps, then, it is time for those on the right to try a new strategy: continue to fight, but do not fight back. 

Some atheists are painfully aware of the fact that those of their ilk who insist upon combatting theism to the death actually legitimate belief in God, for the concept of God is as essential to their position as it is to that of their opponents: atheism depends upon theism. Similarly, in, let’s say, denying the leftist’s contention that income “inequality” is a pressing problem, those on the right legitimize the concept of income “inequality.”

So, rather than resist the logic of their rivals, those on the right should simply exploit it—that is, give it no more than a shove or two—so that it will be seen for the illogic that it is and, hence, collapse under its own weight.  The subject of income “inequality” supplies a nice illustration as to how this political judo can be implemented in action.

When the left cries about income inequality, those on the right should first note that such “inequality” amounts to inter-personal differences in labor prices.  The price that, say, a janitor can charge an employer for his labor isn’t nearly as much as that which a brain surgeon can charge for his.  Then, rightists should not only agree with their opponents that differences—i.e. “inequalities”—in labor prices should be ameliorated; they should go on to demand that differences—“inequalities”—in all prices should be rectified as well.  After all, if it is “unfair” or “unjust” that the price of a busboy’s labor is unequal, radically unequal, to that of the labor of an astrophysicist, then it is just as unfair and, hence, unjust, that the price of DVD is unequal, radically unequal, to that of, say, a Cadillac.

When the left demands that “we” raise the tax rates of the wealthy, the right should not only agree, but beseech Washington to tax all of the resources of “the wealthiest one percent.”  Why not?  If it is permissible, and even obligatory, for “society” to confiscate any of its citizens’ legally acquired property, to say nothing of the continually increasing portions of it that the government actually does tax, then there is no principled basis for drawing a non-arbitrary limit to what can be taken.  And if the objective is to “help the poor” and/or “the middle class,” then it can’t matter, morally, how much of a citizen’s assets with which he is made to part.

When the left insists upon raising “the minimum wage” to $10.00 an hour, the right should insist upon raising it ten, 100, or 1,000 times that.  Since the left speaks and acts as if there exists a potentially bottomless supply of funds from which to draw in subsidizing their “transformative” agenda, the right simply has to note that neither practically or in principle can there be any justification for placing such an arbitrary cap as $10.00 an hour on the minimum wage.

When the left urges the government to coerce private employers into hiring and serving people, the right should demand of government that it go further and coerce the heads of households to welcome into their homes, or to create new homes with, people with whom they may not wish to associate.  If “social justice” requires that employers use their own property to promote, say, racial diversity, then “social justice” should also require that all citizens use their property to do the same.  What this might very well then mean is that—again, all for the sake of “social justice”—the government will have to “redistribute” children of one race from the homes in which they were born and reared to the homes of members of other races.  What a way to teach them—to teach all of us—of the endless riches of diversity! “Social justice” might also require that the government establish quotas designed to allow only so many intra-racial marriages per year: people would be made to marry members of other races.

When the left goes on about how the only thing that matters in marriage is love, the right should go on to argue for polygamy, polyandry, and whatever other arrangements of which they can imagine.

Whether such a strategy as I here recommend would be successful, or whether it is even, in all truth, desirable, is questionable. But its appeal lies in two causes. First, it reveals the outrageous absurdities in which leftist thought inevitably has to culminate.  Second, it unveils the ominous truth that, in principle, the left has no reason for not aspiring to control every aspect of human existence.