, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

That’s right, liberals are children. They aren’t “like” children, they are children. It’s not an analogy. Liberals, particularly the activists and ideologues, display all the characteristics and behaviors of children and early adolescents. Liberals use short, simple slogans in place of reasoned arguments. Liberals can’t understand or accept that someone could possibly disagree with them, so they irrationally ascribe absurd motives to others. When faced with facts and reasoning, liberals resort to name-calling and tantrums.

Relativism is the view that truth depends on the individuals or groups holding them. It is the belief that points of view have no absolute truth, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration. In other words, relativism teaches that there are no absolutes or absolute truth. Although relativism in all its forms is self-contradictory and easily refuted, it is the dominant view of the Left and has infiltrated our culture. To a moral relativist, the only sin is condemning something as sin. It is the laziest form of thought and is the antithesis of critical thought. It is a barrier to the development of mature moral reasoning–if nothing is really true, then nothing is really false and you don’t ever have to come to a meaningful moral or intellectual decision, or take any responsibility for your beliefs or their consequences. Is it any wonder that a media culture dominated by ultra-liberal relativists holds out eternal adolescence, with a complete lack of consequences or responsibility for them, as the ideal?

Liberalism is always based on simplistic arguments and reasoning. One of the simplest forms of moral reasoning is to split people or things into two seemingly mutually exclusive groups (e.g., good and bad). That level of reasoning works fine for children (don’t steal), but adults need to learn that live often isn’t so simple. A great example from literature is Inspector Javert from Victor Hugo‘s Les Misérables. Javert’s world is very black and white. There are good people and they always do good. There are bad people and they always do evil. It is this world view that inspires his relentless pursuit of Jean Valjean, a released convict who has changed his name to avoid the prejudices against convicts. When Valjean saves Javert’s life, the moral dilemma of a bad man doing a good thing overwhelms him and drives him to take his own life.

In large part due to their embrace of moral relativism, liberalism operates at this minimal lever of moral reasoning. The point can best be made by way of examples. One of the basic premises of the left is that war is bad and peace is good. They express it with simplistic slogans like “War is not the answer!” As a broad generality, the idea expresses a basic truth. We all prefer being at peace to being at war, but adults living in a dangerous world with dangerous people understand that peace is not always an option and that you can’t say that war is not the “answer” without first knowing what the question was. Nevertheless, using their childish moral reasoning, the left condemns war in general (ignoring the wars they choose to start) and verbally endorses peace. Because they are for peace, anyone who disagrees with their policies or beliefs must be for war. Since the other side is for war, there is no need to examine their actual views or reasoning, much less the actual results of either side’s policies. They are the bad guys because they are for the bad thing. Ergo, conservatives are labeled warmongers who like killing people. It’s a corollary of what I call the Krauthammer Principle:

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

The same kind of reasoning underlies all of liberalism. The liberals see themselves as good people, like most people do. Because they are good, any one who disagrees with them is bad. The concept that people may disagree with them and not be evil is too complicated for their limited moral reasoning.

Because helping those in need is good, and they don’t want to have to do it themselves, liberals support massive social welfare programs at all levels of government. Decades of failure to achieve any success and the creation of a permanent, dependent underclass does not cause them to question their policies. They know that their cause is right, so the lack of success must be caused by something else. Whether it’s welfare or failing school systems dominated by liberal politicians, administrators, teachers, and unions, the cause of failure is always conservative refusal to spend even more money on failure. This is true even in places like Madison where there aren’t enough conservatives to have even a minimal impact on elections and fiscal policy.

The liberal position on almost anything can be reduced to a short, simple slogan. If you don’t believe me, just take a drive around Madison and read the ludicrous bumper stickers. Or take a look at the signs displayed by the Unionist protestors at the Wisconsin capitol, or any of the Occupy protest sites.

When faced with facts and reasoned arguments, liberals throw out their slogans and baseless talking points in much the same way a child thinks that accusations, no matter how baseless, are arguments. Oppose killing unborn babies or having to pay for it, you’re anti-women even if you’re a woman. Oppose discrimination against any and all races, you’re anti-minority. Oppose confiscatory tax rates, you’re against the poor and working classes. The list goes on and on. It doesn’t matter why you disagree with them. It doesn’t matter how often their policies fail or lead to the results they deplore. It’s a very short step, if any at all, from there to the name-calling: racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot, etc. They’re more serious than the insults that children use, but have no more intellectual basis, probably less.

If they don’t get their way after that, it gets really ugly. The Wisconsin capitol protests and all that has happened are prototypical behavior. If you don’t get your way, throw a tantrum with as much hysterics and as much noise as possible. It’s a tactic typical of the terrible two, teenage drama queens, and liberals. The more “intellectual” a liberal is, the more irrational and loud the outburst is likely to be. The capitol protests were full of teachers and professors. Of course, to a liberal educated means being indoctrinated in liberalism and its relativistic gibberish to the point of intellectual incapacity. That’s probably why a typical university campus has become the least likely place in the country to find an original thought.

It used to be that being “conservative” meant being tied to the past and unwilling to accept any change and “liberal” signified new ideas. But shortly after WW II, the roles somehow got reversed. Modern liberalism is firmly moored to the failed economic and social ideas of “sainted” figures like Keynes, FDR, and LBJ. It doesn’t matter that Keynes wasn’t educated in economics or even particularly well read in the subject. His moronic and dogmatically socialist views on capitalism and economics are scripture to the left, no matter how spectacularly they fail. Objectively viewed, FDR has the worst economic record of any leader in U.S. history, probably in world history. He turned a recession into the most prolonged economic catastrophe in human history. In other words, to a liberal he’s an icon of economic and political achievement who saved the world. Between the two of them, Roosevelt and Johnson have nearly achieved the bankruptcy of the wealthiest and most prosperous nation in the history of man. All it took was Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Entitlement programs put on automatic growth decades ago swallow larger and larger shares of the federal budget without even the pretense of fiscal controls. Even as these programs approach insolvency, even if we pretend that fictional “trust” accounts actually hold real assets, liberalism’s dogmatic allegiance to Saints FDR and LBJ prevent any attempt to actually save the program’s prospects for long-term solvency and existence. LBJ’s so-called War on Poverty has produced many casualties, all of them poor and disproportionately minorities. Cash assistance has replaced fathers and work ethic and produced a permanent underclass unlike anything before in our history. Today, Obama and his unionist allies seek to force America into a union dominated economic model born in and built to address an economic and legal system that hasn’t existed since before WW II. The only less progressive idea the left has put forward is the desire to convert to a transportation mode from the nineteenth century that became economically and technologically obsolete decades ago, trains. The left hasn’t come up with a new or original policy proposal since FDR turned the federal government into a “progressive” behemoth with an insatiable appetite for the wealth and freedom of individual. Instead of new ideas, they try to find new faces to put on the old ideas–Obama the last time, Carter a generation ago (sorry Hillary, but by 2008 you’d been at the forefront far too long to create the illusion of originality or novelty).

Since at least Reagan, all of the new ideas have come from the right. Conservatives are guided by our founding principles, but are not dogmatically tied to the past. If it worked in the past, and most of it did, we try to preserve it. If it didn’t work or was wrong (e.g., slavery or worker oppression) we learn from the mistakes of the past and try to eliminate them. Modern conservatism is the source of new ideas and forward thinking. Modern liberalism is reactionary and seeks to preserve the status quo or to roll back society to past golden ages. Clinton tries to take credit for welfare reform, but anybody who looks past his rhetoric to the cold facts knows that Clinton fought it tooth and nail before it finally became law. Democrats defend the fiscal status quo while “radicals” on the right fight to enact reforms favored by strong majorities of voters. Nancy Pelosi decried the excessive deficits of her Republican counterparts and then, once she held the Speaker’s gavel, she and Harry Reid proceeded to grow the deficit at unprecedented levels. Once they added Obama to the mix, they made the first two Pelosi budgets, and deficits, look paltry. Liberals pay lip service to the injustice of corporations like GE bringing in enormous profits without paying taxes, but shriek like banshees when Paul Ryan proposes reforming the corporate tax code to reduce loopholes (aka, “targeted tax cuts” when Democrats propose them as an alternative to across the board rate cuts) for the tax avoiders and lower rates for the small corporations that are actually forced to pay our exorbitant corporate tax rates, the highest in the world.

If the label Progressive still had any relation to the meaning of the word, it would be applied to the Right. Just as intellectual would be applied to people who actually have new ideas and not the close-minded professorial class that strives in all ways to stamp out free thought and critical thinking among their student.

Conservatives often find it unfathomable that liberals will make the most salacious and patently absurd statements. We find it hard to understand how any rational mind can believe, much less state, such absurdities. If you have small children, or can remember what they were like, you’ll probably see what I mean rather quickly. If not, discuss it sometime with a fellow conservative with a quarrelsome child going through their terrible twos. The difference is really just a matter of volume and scale.