home > archive > 2008 > this article

Search this site Search WWW
Why the left can't get it right

By Mark Alexander
web posted July 21, 2008

Ask a liberal about some manifestation of his worldview—for example, why he supports charlatans like Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Albert Arnold Gore, Jean-Francois Kerry, et al., and he invariably predicates his response with, "Because I feel..."

Ask a conservative about what he believes, or why he does or doesn't support John McCain, and he invariably predicates his response with, "Because I think..."

It has always been easier to "feel" rather than "think," and that is why our national culture, and by extension, national politics (see Democrat Party Platforms) reflect only the most rudimentary remnants of the guiding principles established by our Founders. Of course, though Republican Party Platforms are more consistent with our Founding principles, Ronald Reagan was the last Republican president to stand firmly in support of those principles.

Liberalism tends to appeal to the worst of human instincts—greed, envy, laziness, victimization and every line of division. Its practitioners appeal to constituent "feelings," and they thus convert emotions into political capital.

Leftist pathology is deserving of its own category on the short list of personality disorders, and liberal politicians have one uniformly defining characteristic: hypocrisy.

Liberal politicos advocate populist themes but are consummate elitists. They feign concern for the plight of the poor while hobnobbing with the richest of the rich. They are charitable with everyone's income but their own. They decry school vouchers yet send their children to the finest academies. They hate SUVs, unless they are expensive imports. They advocate mass transit but commute on private jets. They express concern for the homeless yet maintain multiple manors.

Liberals advocate diversity, unless your views don't comport with their own doctrines of moral relativism. They want to preserve nature and the natural order but advocate homosexual "marriage." They oppose the death penalty for the most heinous of criminal sociopaths, but they support the execution of unborn children in their mothers' wombs. They believed that one nut who bombs an abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They called 9/11 victims "Little Eichmanns" while calling their murderers "oppressed." They "support our troops" while calling for retreat and surrender.

Liberals call for "change" but are firmly committed to the status quo. They oppose nuclear power production while complaining about "global warming." They call for racial, ethnic and religious harmony, but they rally constituencies by fomenting division and hate. They deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny.

Indeed, liberals have turned the wisdom of their iconic sovereigns inside out.

Then: "My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country." —John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, 1961

Now: "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you."

Then: "I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." —Martin L. King, Address from the Lincoln Memorial, 1963

Now: "I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character but by the color of their skin."

Liberals have replaced the original Constitution with their so-called "Living Constitution" so that they can insist on viewing the First Amendment through a wide-angle lens—except, of course, the "freedom of religion" part, where they opt to censor Christianity while imposing secular atheism. They advocate a "Wall of Separation" between church and state, but they tear down any obstacles between your income and the state. Of course, they also insist on viewing the Second Amendment through a pinhole.

Liberals protest economic recession, all the while suppressing economic growth with evermore taxes and regulations. Most of them are card-carrying members of the ignoble ranks of "useful idiots," those Western apologists for Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism. Of course, that card reads: "Member, Democrat National Committee."

I have no doubt that you've already come up with a list of additional examples of liberal hypocrisy. Unfortunately, there isn't enough bandwidth on the Internet to compile a comprehensive list here. (Feel free to post additional examples on our reader comments page.)

Liberal and conservative worldviews often collide for this reason: Disciplined conservatives put God first, family and country second and themselves third, while liberals tend to put themselves first, their country last, and serve gods made in their image. This is the most defining philosophical distinction between these two groups.

As we approach the next presidential election, Leftmedia types suggest that most Americans are in the middle—"moderate" or "centrist." But political researchers are finding that we are in fact a deeply divided nation, with many voters strongly identifying with either conservative or liberal doctrines.

Let's hope and pray that more of our fellow Americans, those guided by their feelings, will think better of this process and vote on right-minded principles. Otherwise, it will be difficult to seat candidates who, in the words of Samuel Adams, possess the qualities of "wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth..." ESR

Mark Alexander is the executive editor of the Patriot Post.

Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story





Site Map

E-mail ESR


1996-2020, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.