As a result of their wildly failed policies and
politicians, leftists have recently abandoned the moniker "Liberal"
and its pejorative connotation for the highly sanitized label, "Progressive". Mutton can call itself lamb, but it doesn't change the facts; they
were Liberals before, and they're still Liberals today.
As
an ideology, Liberalism is predicated on a set of communal values and the idea
that the “collective” is far more important than the individual. There is an underlying belief system, the
gist of which is that “caring” and “sharing” and “looking after ones neighbors”
are all that is required to create a utopian society.
The fundamental problem with Liberalism is that it doesn't work.
At
its root, Liberalism is based in childlike emotionalism. It eschews scary adult
concepts like Profit & Loss and personal accountability.
Arguments
in support of Liberalism are grounded almost entirely on “feelings”. Relying on
emotion provides a convenient diversion from the lack of facts otherwise
critical to justifying a given position. Emotion also obscures the failure to reach
logical and rational conclusions that would be drawn from these facts if they
existed.
To
Liberals, it doesn’t matter if the budget doesn’t balance because in their
minds, their hearts were in the right places. No worries that an entitlement
program failed to produce the intended results – After all, “It’s the thought
that counts!” They believe in what they
feel, independent of reason, rationality or logic.
The
basic premise of the liberal ideology evokes memories of classic kindergarten
mantras:
“It's nice to share.”
“Everyone deserves a medal.”
“Take turns.”
Kindergartners
pass out birthday cupcakes to the entire class as a gesture of their celebrity
for the day; they gleefully accept well wishes in return, and assume that they
will likewise partake in the birthday largess of their peers. The distribution
of Valentines to each and every classmate is an exercise in childhood
innocence, acceptance and the promotion of “collectivism”.
Presumably,
kindergarten lessons are intended to imbue young children with a sense of
caring for others as well as the basics of citizenship. They do not, however,
translate well to address complex, real-world issues:
War is “mean” and people will get hurt, so it’s “bad”!
John’s feelings will be hurt if he doesn’t get
promoted, so his boss should promote him!
That person is poor and it would be nice to give
him money, so the government should do it!
Let’s show those people how nice we are, and maybe
they won’t want to kill us!
While
appealing on some childish, emotional level, the concepts fall flat when
applied in the adult world.
Another
“downside” to using kindergarten principles to run the country is that they clearly
fail to meet economic muster. While liberal governments are quick to promise
“goodies for all”, the reality of economics becomes problematic as an ever-smaller
subset of the population is actually producing and providing the “treats”. As the number of producers dwindles, the resources
simply cannot meet what has been promised.
The numbers just don’t add up.
Fortunately,
Liberals never let pesky constructs like arithmetic, get in the way of an
impassioned argument!
Furthermore,
Liberalism fails not only on an economic level, but on a moral one as well; it
changes the fundamental nature of the human act of “giving”.
Sharing
cupcakes on ones birthday is a far cry from a government mandate to provide a
specific flavor and quantity of cupcakes, at specified intervals, to unknown
individuals of the government’s choosing.
Once
coerced or mandated to “give” to another, the “giver” feels no sense of pride,
satisfaction, or goodwill towards the “taker”. Furthermore, the receiver feels
no sense of gratitude or moral obligation to the giver. Instead, the government,
rife with liberal politicians, pats its collective self on the back for having orchestrated
this “good act”.
America’s
highly graduated tax structure and growing entitlement programs are nothing
more than forced redistribution of wealth aimed at making their proponents feel
good about themselves. The moral transaction inherent in true “giving” has been
entirely corrupted in the process.
To
help them make a compelling emotional argument, Liberals wrap their ill-conceived
social programs with highly charged words intended to resonate on a deep
emotional level.
With
a name like the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, what's not to
like? “Protection”, “Affordable” and “Care” are far more embraceable than
something as mundane -- and truthful -- as the “Health Insurance Overhaul Act”.
The
“Children’s Defense Fund”, “Protect Children not Guns” and the “Strong Start for
America’s Children” act: Warm and fuzzy names for bills are a stanchion of
Liberalism and part and parcel of their emotion laden rhetoric.
To
Liberals, the fact that their programs and policies don’t work doesn’t matter:
Their good intentions are treated as more important than the results of their actions. You get an “A” for effort!
How
else can one possibly explain why Kathleen Sebelius hasn’t been fired for
complete and total incompetence in the rollout of ObamaCare? Apparently, “she tried really hard” is enough to ensure
job security for a Liberal!
Perhaps
the only thing worse than a failed program sold largely on emotional grounds,
is a failed program that leaves us far worse off than we were when we started.
Rather
than focusing on feelings, conservatives are much more likely than Liberals to
consider the long-term consequences of a given policy. While increasing taxes on
the rich will, for example, provide more immediate revenue to the government,
it also will result in significantly less capital available for investment in
commerce. Liberals fail to grasp the
logic that investment capital is critical for true economic growth. All that
matters to them is the feel-good idea of playing Robin Hood – Pragmatism, outcomes
and sustainability be damned!
Worse
yet, failure to embrace the emotional plea of Liberalism is generally met with
vitriolic backlash.
Even
if their positions are contradicted by facts or logic, Liberals demonize those
who disagree with them as corrupt, ignorant, racist or worst.
Liberals
know they won’t likely win a debate on logical grounds, so they quickly devolve
to the emotional mat. Once the debate has been refocused to emotional issues, Liberals
solidify their position on the moral high ground, claiming the cruel and uncaring
position of their opponents. What cold, unfeeling person doesn’t want to feed
starving children or provide medical care for 26 year olds still living in
their parent’s basements?
Then,
when all else fails, Liberals resort to the most emotional of all arguments, “the
children”. There is almost no argument a Liberal can make that
doesn't somehow circle back to some bevy of anonymous children. You could be
debating the pros and cons of nuclear disarmament in post-cold war Russia, and
some sappy liberal news anchor will chime in "But what about the children?
Let's think about the children!"
There’s
nothing a Liberal loves as much as dependency, and there’s nothing so dependent
as a child. Liberals find children particularly politically useful because it
gives them justifiable reason to act on their little voiceless behalves. Liberal politicians love to define -- and
then “solve” -- the problems of poor, defenseless children. This generally involves designing new and
costly programs that will require funding in perpetuity in order to prevent
some previously unwitnessed evil. You
remember, like the leagues of American children found starving in the streets
before Liberals pushed school lunch –and now school breakfast –programs into
place?
Never
mind that soon we won’t be left with money for juice and graham crackers, let
alone two publically-funded school meals every day.
No
doubt, the impetus behind many liberal programs is heartfelt, but their
“solutions” nearly always require more government expense and oversight than
can possibly be justified.
In
the end, Liberalism comes down to fatuous, feel-good emotionalism; it sounds
appealing, but remains
oblivious to the objective operational realities of the vision it promotes.
Conservatism,
on the other hand, requires doing things the right way, even when it’s painful
and not pretty. It means rewriting
policies when they don’t work and disassembling well-entrenched programs that
fail to produce the desired results. It means acting like responsible,
accountable adults. It means suffering
the playground insults of emotionally charged Liberals who would portray us
thoughtless and uncaring.
And
it means we have a lot of work to do before naptime.
